Sitting of 5 December 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

  INCOME TAX
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 1985, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Soviet Union) Order 1985, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income (Norway) Order 1985, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1985 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ivory Coast) Order 1985 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

  SUMMER TIME
  I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1985 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  FRASERBURGH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  FRASERBURGH HARBOUR (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  FRASERBURGH HARBOUR (No. 3) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Shops Bill
    Mr. Patrick Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning the Shops Bill [Lords].
    The Minister of State Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): We have received 6,688 representations concerning the Shops Bill [Lords] since it was published.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that these representations confirm general support for reform of the Shops Act 1950, but overwhelming opposition to the idea of unrestricted free trading? In this instance, does he accept that people must be right, where a small committee may well be wrong and that I cannot support proposals that are against custom and practice and the country's Christian tradition?
    Mr. Waddington: In my experience, people write to Members of Parliament when they disapprove of legislation introduced by the Government, but they rarely write and thank us when they agree with what we are doing. In the main, the letters that we have received have obviously come from a vociferous minority.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Why do we have appeals for contributions towards the preservation of St. Margaret's church, Westminster, and churches throughout the country when the Government are doing everything possible to persuade people with a tradition of 500 years of Christian belief to abandon that belief and to shop and work on Sundays? Are the Government now opposed to the Church of England, and are they abandoning that Church because it has become more Marxist or more honest?
    Mr. Waddington: Apart from the fact that in many of our cathedrals Sunday trading is pursued illegally, there seems to be little connection between the hon. Gentleman's question and that on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Butler: My hon. and learned Friend referred to our constituents writing in and making representations direct to the Government. Is it not the case that the volume of letters being received is much greater than on any other subject, in my experience? Will he take into account what people are saying, which is, "Keep Sunday different"? That being so, unless their Lordships, in their wisdom, amend the Bill, will he withdraw it?
    Mr. Waddington: The halfway houses recommended by organisations such as Keep Sunday Different are beguiling at first glance, but the Auld committee looked at them. The Jubilee Centre suggests a new list of goods, but has come up with one based on no principle. Why one should be able to buy tobacco on Sunday but not a plant pot, according to the Jubilee Centre, I do not know.
    Mr. James Lamond: We have been made aware that the Minister does not like letters from hon. Members, but surely he will not brush aside 6,600 letters as a small vociferous minority. How can the Government expect to be believed when the chairman of the Conservative party preaches that there is a serious decline in moral and

    411
    religious standards, while in the same week the Government introduce a Bill such as this in the House of Lords?
    Mr. Waddington: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I like many of the letters that I receive. Many letters have been written to us during the last month. I remind the hon. Member that about 7,000 representations were made to the Auld committee and that a vast volume of evidence was considered by the committee, the composition of which was never objected to at the time. All these matters were studied in great depth. We are studying carefully all the representations that we are receiving.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many small retail outlets in my constituency and elsewhere, many of which are family run, consider that complete deregulation Sunday trading will seriously affect their prospects? Do not these proposals make a mockery of the Government's declared policy to create an environment in which small businesses such as these can thrive and prosper?
    Mr. Waddington: Some of what has been said has unduly alarmed small businesses, but the experience overseas leads one to believe that small businesses can operate flexibly to meet demand in a way that large businesses cannot, and that is the explanation for the fact that the number of small businesses in Sweden has grown since deregulation in 1972.

    Criminal Statistics
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of recorded notifiable offences were cleared up by the police in England and Wales in 1979 and 1984, respectively.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The clear-up rate fell from 41 per cent. in 1979 to 35 per cent. in 1984, but the actual number of offences cleared up rose by 17 per cent. to 1.2 million.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that many of these cases are cleared up thanks to the public rather than the police? Therefore, is it not essential that we maintain the public's confidence? Is the Minister aware that a recent MORI poll showed that three out of five people believe that there should be more police accountability through local councils? Would not such a move improve policing?
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right in the first part of his question, and that success against crime depends upon co-operation between police and public. As to the second part, I point out that, in addition to the figures that I quoted, 75 per cent. of all offences of violence against the person are cleared up, and 91 per cent. of murders.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much that the public could still do to help the police, particularly through such organisations as Crimewatch and by instantly alerting police of problems and not passing by on the other side of the road, as seems to happen so often?
    Mr. Hurd: We are only at the beginning of crime prevention as an effective cause. My hon. Friend mentioned Crimewatch. I agree with him that the number of schemes has doubled during the year. We hope that there will a great many more.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the clear-up rate of offences of insider dealing on the Stock Exchange, bearing in mind that of 100 such offences reported by the Stock Exchange to the Director of Public Prosecutions, only two were proceeded with in the courts?
    Mr. Hurd: I cannot answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question without notice.
    Mr. Kaufman: In view of the serious decline in the clear-up rate during the period of office of this Government, why are they cutting the amount of money to be spent on policing in the next financial year?
    Mr. Hurd: We are not doing so; we are increasing it. In statements in the country the right hon. Gentleman has quoted a figure of 2.5 per cent., which he alleges is a decrease. He is not comparing like with like. He is comparing the likely outturn this year, which includes an obviously unplanned but large amount for police overtime during the miners' dispute, with our plans for next year. We are planning for an increase. What is more, the provisional figures that we published in the autumn statement will be looked at again between Departments to take account of events and needs since then.

    Prison Population
    Mr. Jim Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population of England and Wales at the most recent convenient date; and by what percentage this has risen since the same date in 1979.
    Mr. Hurd: On 20 November 1985 the prison population was 46,930. On 30 November 1979 it was 43,036. That represents an increase of 9 per cent.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Secretary of State aware that, per head of the population, the United Kingdom sends more people to prison than any other major Western European power, with the exception of Turkey? Is he aware also of the dramatic increase in the number of people in the United Kingdom who have been sent to prison during the last 10 years? Is he aware further that it costs £12,000 to send a person to prison in the United Kingdom? As four out of five prisoners are sent to prison for non-violent crimes, would it not be more sensible to give non-custodial sentences to those who are guilty of less serious crimes?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that I send people to prison. I do not send people to prison. The courts send people to prison, having listened to the evidence. For serious cases it is right that there should be serious sentences, which often means custodial sentences. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that for the less serious cases the courts should look carefully at alternatives before awarding custodial sentences.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the staffing levels in a prison in my constituency have fallen to the point where it has become almost impossible for the prison to continue the regime for which it was set up? May I ask him to look at this matter with great care?
    Mr. Hurd: I shall look at the point that my hon. Friend has raised. In general, we are providing this year for an increase in prison staffing.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the record prison population over which his Government preside imposes considerable strains on both prisoners and staff and that this problem should be dealt with by developing alternatives? Any response which means the closure of prison workshops, as has been suggested, will be bitterly resented and opposed by those both inside and outside the prison service and be regarded as a return to the custodial and punitive penal system, from which we thought we had got away a long time ago?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows that there have been many problems with prison industries—over the products, the firms with which contracts have been signed and the staff requirements involved. We are reviewing the matter, but we have not yet reached a decision.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Does the figure that my right hon. Friend has given include those who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment but who for the time being are unlawfully at large? Is he aware that in Derbyshire no fewer than 72 people have absconded this year from just one prison—Sudbury? Should this not be a cause for concern? Will my right hon. Friend look into it urgently?
    Mr. Hurd: Certainly.

    Plastic Bullets
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the chief constable of Greater Manchester about the use of plastic bullets.
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed the availability of plastic baton rounds with the chief constable of Greater Manchester and the chairman of the police authority when he visited Manchester on 18 November. Both the chief constable and the chairman, together with the chief constables of West Midlands, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire and the chairmen of their police authorities, are due to attend a meeting at the Home Office this afternoon to discuss the matter with my officials.
    Mr. Lloyd: Given that the Home Secretary has told the House that he values the relationship between the police and the public, does he accept that the Government and police response to the economic and social disaster in our inner cities of ever more authoritarian policing is inappropriate, because it alienates the public on whom good policing depends? As my constituents risk being killed by these extremely dangerous weapons, is it not right that Parliament should be allowed the opportunity to debate the issue before plastic bullets are released on to the streets of Greater Manchester or elsewhere?
    Mr. Hurd: I hope that it will never be necessary for the police to use plastic baton rounds, on our streets. Earlier this year we had disturbances which were fierce beyond any precedents. When a chief officer of police concludes that he needs plastic baton rounds, and Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary agrees, it is right that they should be available. If the Opposition disagree with that proposition, they have a remedy in their hands.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: While I share my right hon. Friend's hope that those bullets will never have to be used, does he agree that in the end the chief constable is responsible for protecting the members of his force in
    414
    carrying out their duties and responsibilities? Will he therefore ensure that chief constables get every support in making any reasonable request for any equipment that they feel they need for that purpose?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. We are dealing with the protection of both police officers and peaceful citizens. No hon. Member would feel that it was right for the police to be exposed to the sort of attack that they endured at Tottenham without having some recourse, where necessary, to this type of protection.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Home Secretary accept that the vast majority of people in Greater Manchester do not want plastic bullets to be used, and are worried about the information that they have received about their use in Northern Ireland and the loss of life and injuries that they have caused? One of the major lessons from Northern Ireland is that if plastic bullets are to be used, the police must be extremely well trained in their use. At present, the problem in Greater Manchester is that there is no proper policing because of the number of policemen who are undergoing training. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is crazy to train policemen to use plastic bullets, which we all hope will never be used, rather than having policemen on the beat, giving the service that the people of Greater Manchester want?
    Mr. Hurd: That is a rather confused supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman first says that training will be necessary, and then complains that it is taking place. It is easy to produce the figures for those killed by plastic baton rounds in Northern Ireland, but it is not so easy to produce the figures for those whose lives have been saved by them. Plastic bullets are much less dangerous than live bullets.
    Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Police Act 1964 makes it clear that the responsibility for the control and direction of police forces remains with the chief constable? Does he further agree that that principle deserves his utmost support?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, and I have made that clear.

    Detainees (Police and Court Cells)
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the highest number of persons held in police and court cells on one night so far in 1985; and what was the number of (a) men, (b) women and (c) juveniles held in police and court cells at the latest available date.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): The highest number of prisoners held in police and court cells so far in 1985 was 260, on the night of 18–19 February. That was a direct result of short-lived industrial action at Wormwood Scrubs about the handling of prisoners suffering from AIDS. On the night of 4–5 December there were 137 prisoners in police cells, many of whom were there because of industrial action at HM prison Pentonville.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is it not disgraceful, wrong and immoral for a so-called civilised society to hold unconvicted and unsentenced people below ground in dungeon-like conditions, with no access to washing,

    415
    education and recreation facilities or visitors, and, in the process, to turn police officers into turnkeys? When will the Home Secretary live up to the promise of his predecessor to abolish the routine use of court and police cells to hold innocent people by the end of 1983?
    Mr. Mellor: The ending of the routine use of police cells has already occurred. In the seven weeks from the beginning of October—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question, and he might at least have the courtesy to listen to the answer. We appreciate that he is a bit highly strung at the moment, but I hope that he will listen to the answer. From the beginning of October this year, until the third week in November, never more than 40 people were held in police cells. We are going through an exceptional few days. In 1983, 280 prisoners, on average, were held each night in police cells. By the end of the 1984–85 financial year that figure was down to fewer than 20. That is a formidable step in the right direction, which no amount of jeering from the hon. Gentleman can overcome.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of those one-night imprisonments are for drunkenness? Does he agree also that it would be as well to try to find other arrangements to relieve the police service of these cases and to give proper counselling and advice to the people who fall into that trap?
    Mr. Mellor: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend, whose interest in those problems is well known, that the number of people prosecuted for alcohol-related offences is falling dramatically as a result of the diversionary policies that we have been pursuing.

    Civil Defence (Local Authority Communications)
    Mr. Aspinwallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the final report of the working party on local authority communications.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: No, but I expect to receive it shortly.
    Mr. Aspinwall: What steps are being taken to provide direct communication links between county control centres and local BBC radio and television stations?
    Mr. Shaw: As my hon. Friend will be aware, operations under the civil defence provision include the completion of the experimental trials of the communications equipment. We expect to be able to complete them for internal communications between the control centres and the local authorities, but we have no plans at the moment in relation to the broadcasting authorities.

    Trespass
    Mr. Cashasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to deal with difficulties relating to civil and criminal trespass arising from roving convoys of persons and vehicles.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: My right hon. Friend has no present plan to introduce legislation on trespass. However, proposals in the Public Order Bill should help to deal with certain of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the incredible damage caused, costing Staffordshire ratepayers about £80,000, when a peace convoy recently invaded common and open spaces in that part of the world
    416
    should be stopped, and that the criminal law is a way of dealing with such problems? An essential feature of open space and common land law is that it should be available to all people equally. People entering such land, entrenching themselves, and going from there marauding and stealing other people's property is a matter appropriate for the criminal law and should be stopped at once.
    Mr. Shaw: I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about the events that occurred in Staffordshire. He will be aware that in the Public Order Bill, subject to its passage through the House, there are provisions enabling conditions to be imposed upon static assemblies. I hope that the improvement he seeks will be achieved in that way.
    Mr. Hickmet: Does my hon. Friend agree that while trespass has not been a criminal offence, the time has now come to deal with the so-called animal liberation people and those representing so-called animal rights organisations, and to amend the criminal law to cover them when they trespass on private land and cause criminal damage and personal injury to people engaging in their lawful pursuits?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is correct. People seek to disrupt and enter private land and cause major damage to property and some injury to others, and I assure him that the police and the Government are considering carefully what can be done to toughen the law in that direction.

    Licensing Laws
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the licensing laws.
    Mr. Hurd: I want to examine among other things the full report of the Office of Population Censuses and Survey's study of drinking in Scotland before deciding whether relaxations should be introduced in the permitted opening hours of licensed premises in England and Wales.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time we relaxed our licensing laws, bearing in mind the success of the experiment in Scotland? Is he aware that such a relaxation would have wide support throughout the country?
    Mr. Hurd: I have an open mind on that matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will not find me cowardly if I say that I should like to feel a little more sure than I am this afternoon that if we moved in that direction we should have substantial support, not just in both Houses of Parliament, but throughout the country.
    Mr. Skinner: What's all this here then! Is the Home Secretary saying that despite the comments of the chairman of the Tory party the other day about departing from Christian values, the permissiveness of the 1960s, and so forth, he will not only vote for Sunday trading, but will relax the licensing laws as well? I do not know what the Tory party is coming to.
    Mr. Hurd: If having a drink in a pub offends the hon. Gentleman's idea of Christianity, he is a long way away.
    Mr. Skinner: It is Tebbit, not me.
    Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the known connection between levels of alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse,

    417
    and the known connection between alcohol abuse and crime, road accidents, marital break-up and child abuse, as a Select Committee has testified, will my right hon. Friend take note that any change in the licensing laws which does not take account of those important and known facts will be bitterly resisted by some of us?
    Mr. Hurd: Well, there we are. I think that confirms that I was right to be a little cautious in my earlier reply. It is surely right that we should look at the full evidence from Scotland when it becomes available to see what has happened there since drinking hours became more generous.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one reason for the large number of serious traffic accidents late at night is what is known as the stop tap syndrome? Does he agree that at the very least closing hours should be drastically amended to avoid that syndrome?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is on to a good point. Police in some cities confirm that one of their problems is due to a large number of pubs in a relatively small area all closing at the same time.
    Mr. Gregory: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to recommend changes? Is he aware that there was widespread surprise that the Queen's Speech contained no proposals for change? Is he further aware that changes will lead to increased employment and that the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm that the incidence of alcoholism has diminished enormously in Scotland since licensing laws were relaxed?
    Mr. Hurd: I believe that the Scots intend to go public with the full report in February. We shall need to consider the situation fairly quickly after that.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Home Secretary accept that it will be much easier to look at this issue effectively if it is part of an overall package to cope with the problems of alcohol abuse, including reversal of the Department's action in closing detoxification centres, which has resulted in more alcoholics being turned out on to the streets, despite the denial of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State some minutes ago?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's question goes rather wide. We shall have to consider whether opening the pubs for a little longer will increase the intake of alcohol to a damaging extent rather than simply allowing people to do a little more of their drinking in pubs and a little less at home with drink bought at supermarkets.

    Criminal Statistics
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absolute and the percentage increase in the number of offences of criminal damage recorded by the police between 1979 and 1984.
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absolute and the percentage increase in the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police between 1979 and 1984.
    Dr. McDonaldasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absolute and the percentage increase in the number of violent offences recorded by the police between 1979 and 1984.
    Mr. Mellor: Notifiable offences recorded by the police increased by 963,000, or 38 per cent., between 1979 and 1984. In the same period, recorded offences of violence against the person increased by just over 19,000, or 20 per cent., and of criminal damage by 177,000, or 55 per cent.
    Mr. Fatchett: To what extent does the Minister see those shocking figures as representing the failure of Government policy?
    Mr. Mellor: Plainly, it is disappointing that the increase during our period of office has been in line with the increase in the years since the last war, which has averaged about 6 per cent. in recorded offences. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Government policy is geared to ensure that more crimes are cleared up, and 200,000 more offences were cleared up last year than in 1979. Our policy is also geared to ensure that the criminal justice system has the necessary resources and that there is enhanced public confidence in the system. I believe that we have made considerable strides towards that aim, although we should all like to see a decrease in recorded crime figures.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister recall advertisements by Saatchi and Saatchi on behalf of the Conservative party in 1979 claiming that the Tory party would be more effective in combating crime than would the Labour party? If so, does he now agree that those claims were grossly untrue?
    Mr. Mellor: Far from it. I suspect that any opinion poll that is taken—we know of some that have been—will show much greater confidence in the Conservative party on matters of law and order than in the Labour party. As long as the Labour party tolerates people such as Bernie Grant and Ted Knight, that will continue to be the case.
    Dr. McDonald: Does the Minister agree that the figures that he has just announced to the House show that such confidence, if it does exist among the public, is totally misplaced? Should he not now, on behalf of the Government, accept responsibility for the vast increase in crime and recognise that it is at least in part due to high unemployment, cuts in housing expenditure and inner city deprivation?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady is railing against the facts. I have already given an account of our view on the relevance of the increase in recorded crime of our policies. I appreciate that it is frustrating for the hon. Lady that the public see the election of a Labour Government as likely to lead to a reduction in law and order in Britain, but I suspect that that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Hickmet: Law and order in Britain is maintained by respect of the rule of law and of the police. The Labour party is clearly anti-police, as shown by its attitude on police committees controlled by the Labour party. It is also shown by its attitude to some of the inner city riots and responses by some Labour council leaders. What effect does my hon. Friend think that that example will have on the youth of the country and those who engage in crimes of violence?
    Mr. Mellor: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The example is a very bad one.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is it not a fact that the Government came to office on a pledge to fight and reduce crime, but that crime has risen massively under every heading?

    419
    There are now 1 million more serious offences a year than there were when the Government came to office. Is it not a fact that, despite the attempts of the Home Secretary to mislead the House this afternoon, in real terms the Government are reducing the amount of money that is to be spent on policing? Is that not the effect of the public expenditure White Paper and the autumn statement? Why do the Government cut the money for policing when we have 1 million more serious offences a year under Thatcherism?
    Mr. Mellor: I am sorry to have to correct the right hon. Gentleman, but if he compares what was scheduled to be spent and what is due to be spent next year, he will find that the increase that is budgeted for is 6 per cent. That is a 2 per cent. growth in resources for the police in real terms. No Government can undertake to abolish sin, and we have not sought to do so. We have said that under this Government the forces of law and order are much better able to respond than under Labour. If the right hon. Gentleman looks back to 1977, when police morale was at its lowest and there was even talk of police strikes, he will find that that is the case.

    Channel Islands
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Lord Glenarthur's recent official visit to the Channel Islands.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: My noble Friend visited the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark during the period 13 to 16 November. The main purpose of his visit was to acquaint himself with the islands and to meet informally the lieutenant governors and representatives of the island authorities for general discussions on a range of matters of mutual interest and concern. He found the visit to be most useful and informative.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister not aware, from the petitions and many letters that he has received, of the great concern on the islands about tax evasion by companies such as Gomba and the repressive housing laws? The noble Lord was quoted in an interview in the Jersey Evening Post as saying that everything in the garden was lovely. Is the noble Lord unbelievably naive, or is he covering up for the unpatriotic British, including some Tory Members, who are using the tax havens to make money?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister answers, I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is unworthy to talk about unpatriotic Members.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Foulkes: What did I say that upset you, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it upset the House. "Unpatriotic" is not a word that we use of each other here.
    Mr. Foulkes: I shall withdraw "unpatriotic" and insert "Conservative".
    Mr. Shaw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the islands are responsible for their own financial affairs and for the supervision provided for by their own legislation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied that he has adequate powers to protect the interests of Her Majesty's Government.

    Manchester University (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the chief constable of Manchester on his response to the independent inquiry panel report on the policing of the then Home Secretary's visit to Manchester university on 1 March.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: It would not be right for me to comment, or take any other action, until the investigation being conducted by the deputy chief constable of South Wales has been completed and the results have been considered by the Police Complaints Authority and, if appropriate, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that it was extremely arrogant of the chief constable not to agree to a proper public inquiry into the principles involved in the policing of that incident, and that it was particularly arrogant of him to refuse to co-operate with the inquiry that was set up or to comment on the serious allegations that were made? Is it not clear that inquiries by the Police Complaints Authority can have little credibility when it has taken it so long to come forward with any information at all?
    Mr. Shaw: It is anything but arrogant for the chief constable of Greater Manchester police to take note of the fact that the provisions of part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act are in force and that he should, therefore, comply with the decision of the Police Complaints Authority to investigate police complaints in accordance with the Act. That seems to be a wholly appropriate step for him to take.
    Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware of a leaflet, of which a sponsor was the Labour party, circulating in the union at Manchester before the Home Secretary's visit, exhorting members to
    "Stop Leon Brittan from speaking in our union on Friday 1st March: meet on the union steps at 6.30 pm for a mass picket to keep him out"?
    On the back, the leaflet said; "Paint him red!", as they did to the Secretary for State for Defence. Is my hon. Friend proposing to help the Labour party make Manchester university a no-go area for anyone holding views different from themselves?
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Hon. Members might care to note that in the case to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) drew attention there was a major police presence, but when the Minister of State paid a visit he deliberately required that there be no such police presence and he was forcibly prevented from addressing the students' union in that university. Is it not an astonishing fact that the freedom of speech that we cherish so greatly in the House is not available in the University of Manchester?

    Drug Misuse
    Mr. Sackvilleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's campaign against drug misuse.
    Mr. Mellor: The next stage in our continuing education and information campaign, which is now being

    421
    independently evaluated, will be the release shortly of video packages for professionals and young people. We are continuing to give the highest priority to our comprehensive strategy against drug misuse, and will shortly be introducing our Bill to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking.
    Mr. Sackville: Is my hon. Friend aware that last year a sum of £300,000 was forfeited to Greater Manchester police on the conviction of two drug traffickers and that that money is still frozen? Will he give an assurance that the legislation that is introduced will not produce a legal bunfight, but will be workable, and that money forfeited will reach the public purse?
    Mr. Mellor: It would be a rash Minister who said that any piece of forthcoming legislation would avoid a legal bunfight. In so far as it is possible to do so, we shall use our best endeavours to that end.
    Mr. Corbett: Given the increasing misuse of hard drugs, will the Home Office increase, or decrease, the amount of money presently provided to some of the voluntary agencies that help with rehabilitation?
    Mr. Mellor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, £17 million has been allocated for that purpose and 143 organisations have been supported, of which 60 come from the voluntary sector. I expect that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health will have more to say on that before too long.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware that many of the voluntary groups that are doing excellent work with drug addicts find that their future is threatened by the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC? What representations has he made to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to secure the funding of these groups after 1 April?
    Mr. Mellor: I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is based.

    Cinemas (Safety)
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to issue the Cinemas (Safety) Regulations 1985 and accompanying guidance; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Having listened carefully to the central bodies representing the disabled, with which we shall he holding further discussions, we hope to reach a mutually acceptable agreement soon on what might be included in the non-statutory guidance which will accompany the regulations. We shall not propose restrictions on the admission to cinemas either of unaccompanied blind persons or guide dogs. The only restriction contemplated for wheelchair users is that wheelchairs must not be placed where they might obstruct exit routes.
    Mr. Hannam: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's announcement on behalf of organisations representing the disabled, which were extremely concerned at the original proposals in the guidance notes. Will he give every possible assistance to ensure that cinema managers carry out the wishes laid down in the guidance notes, so that the disabled can be given as much access as possible to cinemas?
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome of this development. I note what he has to say about cinema management. However, I must remind him—I am sure that he is aware of this—that the management is responsible ultimately for the safety of its patrons. It decides whom it will admit, within the conditions of its licence.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Does my right hon. Friend agree with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that many social evils of our time derive from the permissive society promoted by liberal politicians in the 1960s and 1970s? If so, what are the Government's plans to combat these evils? Will the Government abandon their posture of neutrality on some issues and deliberate policy on others, which cause many to believe that our Christian way of life is in great danger?
    The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the permissive society was far from neutralist. Indeed, it gave a firm lead in the direction in which I think my hon. Friend wishes to go. The Government have supported private Members' Bills on issues such as controlling video nasties and indecent displays. I hope that we shall continue to take that attitude.
    Mr. Frank Cook: We are well aware of the Prime Minister's reputation of being extremely reluctant to withdraw from any opinion which she has expressed. I ask the right hon. Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—to cast her mind back to 27 November 1984, 53 weeks ago today, when—this is where I shall read—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this is when the hon. Gentleman will ask his question.
    Mr. Cook: I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that I shall express my attitude to that which appears on the piece of paper in my hand. On 27 November 1984 the Prime Minister expressed her hope that the Government would never forget the good work, loyalty and allegiance of those who have served this country. I ask the Prime Minister to consider what form that hope will take following the results of the Australian Royal Commission on nuclear tests at Maralinga.
    The Prime Minister: The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers has only recently been published. We are studying it carefully. It comprises 16 chapters, 201 conclusions and seven recommendations. The Australian Government have stated that they will discuss with Her Majesty's Government those recommendations which affect the United Kingdom. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has read and absorbed the report so quickly.
    Mr. McCusker: If the principles which govern the Prime Minister's attitude to disputed British terrritory are a desire for peace and reconciliation, why does she not enter into negotiations with the Argentine Government with a view to an Anglo-Argentine agreement which will have at its core an Anglo-Argentine conference, jointly chaired by a permanent Minister for the Malvinas and one of her own Ministers, with a permanent secretariat at Port Stanley, which will be able to discuss every matter concerned with the Falkland Islands? After all, there would be no sacrifice of sovereignty, would there?
    The Prime Minister: I think, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman is right off beam. The people of Northern Ireland, like the people of the Falklands, to our way of thinking shall decide by majority where their future lies. That is and will remain enshrined in law.
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the extreme Left, which has hijacked Manchester council, will not succeed in its plans to hijack Manchester airport?
    The Prime Minister rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have the message. Members must ask questions for which the Prime Minister has responsibility. I really do not think that she has responsibility for that matter.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us why the memorandum of understanding on British participation in star wars has not been submitted to the British Parliament for consideration?
    The Prime Minister: It is still being negotiated. It is not customary to submit a memorandum of understanding to Parliament. It is customary to negotiate it and then for the Government to sign if they consider that the results are satisfactory.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether there is to be any conclusion of such negotiations tomorrow? Does she recognise that there is a need and a strong desire on both sides of the House for Members to be able to express views and to ask questions? If negotiations are continuing, can she tell us whether the memorandum involves or will involve any binding agreement, whether any financial commitments have been made by the United States of America, and whether the Government are securing safeguards against the loss both of technology and of technologists in the event of an agreement being concluded? Why, in any case, is there a rush to sign now? Nobody else is showing such sycophantic haste as the right hon. Lady.
    The Prime Minister: Some of the details—for example, the use of intellectual property which results from any research which we undertake under an SDI memorandum of understanding—are still being negotiated. It is very important to secure the right to that intellectual property. I am not in a position to say whether the agreement will be signed tomorrow. Its details are still being negotiated. I hope that it will be signed before Christmas.
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend give thought later today to the fact that when the Greater London council recently decided to invest nearly £2 million in a fleet of 53 dial-a-ride minibuses, it chose to buy French vehicles despite the availability of comparable British vehicles? Is that what Socialists mean by supporting British industry?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that, so long as British industry is competitive with others, people will support it fully.
    Dr. Owen: Is it right to continue to hide behind the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and make it impossible for British service men exposed to nuclear radiation to challenge the British Government in the courts, whereas Australian citizens are able to use the courts to challenge the Australian Government? In the light of the Royal Commission report, will the Prime Minister now lift this ban on action being taken by British service men, many of whom have suffered grievously as a result of the tests?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a survey on British service men who took part in the tests in Australia was set up in 1983. I am not in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman any more information, because that survey is continuing.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Prime Minister aware that last week a Minister of the Crown, before a Select Committee, said that the forthcoming possible withdrawal from UNESCO was a decision that would be taken by Her Majesty's Government without any pressure whatever from the United States? In view of the fact that change has already taken place, and that Britain, as the leading member of the Commonwealth, could, with her Commonwealth partners, achieve even greater change in the future, and that any withdrawal from UNESCO would be to the detriment of Britain's influence in the world, will the Prime Minister say why she disagrees with those points?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a statement on the Government's decision on UNESCO is to be made later this afternoon. It was a decision taken in British interests.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent months many hon. Members on both sides of the House have become anxious and distressed about the constant bickering between Her Majesty's Government and the Church of England? If it is too much to hope that my right hon. Friend can abate the intense keenness of some of my colleagues to make instant comments on Church publications, could she, when she meets the Archbishop of Canterbury, ask him whether some of the statements could be made by more broadly-based politicians, not only by those on the Left, and whether their remedies could be more spiritual and less economic?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for the reasonableness of his question. Everyone should read the report and make up his mind on the recommendations.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Adley: I welcome the letter that my right hon. Friend sent yesterday to the leader of the Liberal party, in

    425
    which she referred to misdemeanours by a few people in the City. Is she aware that many Conservative Members are concerned about those activities? Will she assure the House that she and her Ministers, where practicable and proper, will bring whatever pressure they think it is right to bear on the City to enforce self-regulation? If that will not work, there are those of us who will be looking very carefully at the Financial Services Bill when it is published.
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, matters of fraud are for the police, and prosecution is for the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, not the Government. The Government are anxious that there should not be any shortage of resources, and we are reviewing that matter immediately.
    As my hon. Friend is aware, the Financial Services Bill will be published shortly. In White Paper form it was broadly welcomed by the House as a whole. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Government set up the fraud investigation group earlier this year to help to get effective investigation and prosecution of major fraud cases. The Government have asked Lord Justice Roskill to look at the law and procedure in major fraud cases, and his inquiry is expected to report early in the new year.
    The Government are as anxious as anyone in the land to see that cases of fraud are brought to court and convictions secured where the evidence so permits.
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: During the break from her engagements, will the Prime Minister examine the take-over bid that is being made by Elders for Allied Lyons? Is she aware that 68,000 jobs at Allied Lyons are at risk? Does she agree that there is something wrong with the capitalist system when it permits foreign bankers to have rich financial pickings at the expense of workers' jobs? Will she ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to recommend to the Office of Fair Trading that the matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    The Prime Minister: It is clear from the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question that this matter must be considered first by the Director General of Fair Trading. When he has received his advice, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will decide whether to refer the matter. I hope and believe that that decision will be made soon.
    Mr. Forthasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the police continue to attract the support and confidence of the British people? Does she further agree with the contempt that many Conservative Members hold for mad Bernie Grant and the Haringey militants, who are trying to throw the police out of the Broadwater Farm estate? Does she also agree that the residents of Broadwater Farm estate would rather have police protection than military anarchy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, wholeheartedly. The latest antics of Mr. Grant show how very much the Left is still
    426
    against the police. I think that is a tragedy. I understand that the Commissioner's view is that the police are entitled to be present in the numbers they think necessary. He believes it right that the police—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Opposition Members will try to prevent from speaking anyone who stands up in support of the police. The Commissioner believes it right that the police should be free to decide what is needed to provide the local people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—with the protection to which they have a right. I notice that some hon. Members do not like free speech.

    Points of Order
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the three statements, unless they arise directly from and are not an extension of Question Time.
    Mr. Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would allow my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to answer my question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] This is a matter for which the Government have direct responsibility, and n stems directly from an answer given on Monday afternoon by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman had thought out his question carefully, because it was printed on the Order Paper. But the House knows that questions must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibility. She has no responsibility for any action that militants might take—
    Mr. Churchill rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for any action that militants might take at Manchester airport.
    Mr. Churchill rose—
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take Mr. Churchill first.
    Mr. Churchill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government clearly have responsibility for legislation in the House that could prevent the Marxist Left on Manchester city council from taking over Manchester airport under the guise of a sham—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Indeed, that may be so. Had the hon. Gentleman asked that question, it would have been in order.
    Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The most important feature of that question was not only that was it planted but that the Prime Minister had a readymade answer to a question for which you said she has no responsibility. The Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) were cheating the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is wrong to say that questions are planted when they are on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask on whose authority business questions have been relegated to being taken after a statement when our normal procedure is that they come before statements?
    Mr. Speaker: If the Government ask to make a business statement, that is in order and it takes its proper place.
    Mr. John Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can it be ruled that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the question when the question was written before the answer? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Thurnham: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd rose—
    Mr. Golding rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) must put the question in the proper form. If he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that he did not.
    Mr. Thurnham: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a meeting tomorrow of the shadow joint board for Manchester airport, and we should be most grateful to hear an answer to the question that I put.
    Mr. Speaker: Not today.
    Mrs. Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will understand why I raise this point of order at this stage. It arises out of Question Time. I do so because I was named on the Order Paper for absenting myself from a Private Bill Committee.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has given me notice of this point of order, and it does not arise out of this Question Time.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy programme today. There are three statements and some important business. I will take points of order if they are legitimate and arise out of this Question Time. I will take other points of order in their proper place at the end, where I always take them.
    Mr. Golding: The response of the House to the mistake that I made in my point of order was more eloquent than if I had put it correctly.
    Mr. Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order at this stage.
    Mrs. Clwyd rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order. I ask the hon. Lady to resume her seat, please. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order.
    Mrs. Clwyd rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I will take the hon. Lady's point of order, as I have said, at the end of the statement; and I will take the point of order of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) at the end of the statements.
    Mrs. Clwyd rose—
    Mr. Bennett rose—
    The Prime Minister: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the European Council held in Luxembourg on 2 and 3 December. My right hon. and learned Friend—
    Mrs. Clwyd rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Lady's Committee will meet at 4 o'clock?
    Mrs. Clwyd: No; it is meeting now, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: In that event, as an exception, I shall take the hon. Lady's point of order.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to press the point, but it raises an interesting matter on which I should like your ruling.
    First, I was absent from the Committee for which I was named on the Order Paper because I was down on the Order Paper to ask a question in the Chamber. I should like your ruling on whether Committee business takes precedence over the business of the Chamber. I would like that information for my constituents and for other hon. Members. It is important that we should know whether it is less important to examine the Executive than to be in Committee. I should like your ruling because, according to the rules of Committee, we are subject to penalties if we absent ourselves from a Committee. I think that you should give a ruling on the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is of interest to the whole House. The hon. Lady gave me notice of her point of order, so I am able to give her the ruling for which she asks. She will know that the House has always regarded attendance at Private Bill Committees as of the utmost importance. Under Standing Order No. 122 of the Private Business Standing Orders absences from these Committees must be reported to the House. The form of words of the report matches the wording of the Standing Order, which is:
    "A member of any such committee shall not absent himself from his duties thereon, except in the case of illness or by leave of the House; and if any member is not present within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting of the committee, or if any member absents himself from his duties thereon, the member shall be reported to the House at its next sitting."
    That is the Standing Order.

European Council (Luxembourg)
3.39 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council held in Luxembourg on 2 and 3 December. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs accompanied me to this meeting. I have arranged for the conclusions of the Council to be put in the Library of the House.
The European Council reached agreement in five main areas. The first was the completion of the Community's internal market. This has been an important United Kingdom objective for a long time, with the strong support of British industry and business. The target of completing the Common Market by 1992 will be established in the treaty, and we agreed that there should be greater use of majority voting on a number of treaty articles dealing with goods and services. But unanimity will be retained for all decisions on taxation. The free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employees.
We also retain the right to take national action where required to protect public, animal and plant health.
The United Kingdom's position and the position of this Parliament are thus properly protected on such vital questions as frontier controls in relation to terrorism, crime, drugs and immigration from outside the Community; and on essential controls in health—for example, on rabies. The Luxembourg compromise, whereby a member state can invoke a very important national interest to prevent a decision being taken, is unaffected.
Secondly, the European Council agreed that the treaty should be brought up to date by new articles on technology, environment and the regional fund. Action has hitherto been taken in these areas on the basis of the general article in the treaty. The new articles will provide a more precise basis for action in these areas in future. Unanimity will be preserved for all-important decisions.
Thirdly, we agreed on procedural changes to improve consultation with the European Assembly. There will be better arrangements to enable the Council to take account of amendments to Community legislation suggested by the Assembly. But in all cases the last word on such legislation will rest with the Council. There will be no transfer of power on these matters from this House to the Assembly.
Fourthly, on monetary co-operation between member states, an amendment to the treaty was agreed which describes what has already been achieved in the Community framework, without entering into new commitments.
Finally, agreement was reached on a separate treaty of co-operation in foreign policy on the basis of the draft presented last summer by the United Kingdom. This formalises existing arrangements for consultation among the Ten on foreign policy matters and looks to a steadily closer co-operation.
The European Council's decisions on all these matters remain subject to general reservations from Italy and Denmark. The proposed amendments to the treaty will go forward only if these reserves are lifted. The United Kingdom has reserved its position on the voting arrangements in a proposed new treaty article on working
430
conditions. We insist that unanimity be preserved, in view of the risks that this article might be used to impose unfair burdens on our small and medium-sized business.
The European Council also discussed the economic and social situation and confirmed existing economic policies designed to reduce inflation and encourage sustained growth. On deregulation, the Commission gave an undertaking that in future all new proposals would be accompanied by an assessment of the effects on business and job creation; that the most important existing regulations would be re-examined to simplify them and to reduce the burden on industry; and that there should be a regular procedure for monitoring progress towards this objective. The United Kingdom's initiative earlier this year has thus been formally adopted.
In my statement in this House following the last European Council in June, I made it clear that we would have been ready then to take the steps necessary to complete the internal market, to improve decision taking, to formalise foreign policy co-operation and to improve procedures for consultation with the European Assembly.
Those objectives are now embodied in the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council together with some tidying up of the treaty to reflect the Community's development. The amendments to the treaty have to be approved by each sovereign Parliament and accordingly will be submitted to this House.
I believe that the conclusions on completing the Common Market and reducing the burden of regulations will be of long-term benefit to British firms selling their goods and services in the European Community. Together with the arrangements to reduce the scale of Britain's budgetary contribution agreed last year, they will be an important step towards enabling this country to realise more fully the benefits of our membership of the European Community.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread feeling that yet again a summit has evaded the obligations and opportunities to tackle effectively unemployment in Europe and to promote Europe's role in international affairs? Does she recall saying to the House on her return from the Milan summit in July:
"I saw nothing before us that would require an amendment to the treaty"—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c 189.]
Why has she now performed a U-turn and agreed to procedures for amending the treaty as well as conceding the national right of veto in important sectors?
At Luxembourg, did the Prime Minister bother to pursue reform of the common agricultural policy, which produces food stockpiles that not only obviously outrage the British people but continue to distort seriously Community funding? Did she raise the question of the huge gap between social fund remittance and payments which, according to Commissioner Varfis, will ensure that the worst losses will be inflicted on the British people in 1986? Why does the Prime Minister continue to promote the idea of European foreign policy co-operation but ignore the views of our partners in the Community over issues such as the Falklands and South Africa, and today spitefully rejected their unanimous plea for us to remain in UNESCO?
The Prime Minister: We had a debate on economic matters and considered a substantial report by the Commission. It will be considered in more detail by the

431
finance Council. All member Governments present endorsed the approach of the Commission which was to pursue policies to keep inflation down and prudent financial policies, and thereafter to pursue deregulation and to take steps to bring the internal market into being.
As to the amendments, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, most of what has been done now could have been achieved without treaty amendment. Many of the others wished to go by treaty amendment. I was not one of those, but as they wished to do so they were entitled to. The detailed drafting of the amendments shows that all our interests are protected. Many amendments, such as that on monetary matters, merely describe the state that we have reached in the Community. It was interesting that those who wanted treaty amendments most were those who have put a reserve on the results.
As to the CAP, the treaty is not the obstacle to reform. There is nothing wrong with the treaty provision for the common agricultural policy. The matter comes up each time, but, as we were dealing with treaty matters, reform did not arise.
As to foreign policy co-operation, I expect that there will continue to be differences, but we shall try to work together as much as possible. As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Falklands, I remind him of the support that we got from the Community when the Falklands compaign was beginning, support for which we were profoundly grateful.
Mr. David Howell: Is not the best way to bring monetary affairs within the scope of the Community and the treaty to achieve free trade in financial services and free capital movement throughout the Community? Can my right hon. Friend reassure us that the summit agreement has made, and will make, progress on that front?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is aware that we pointed out to some of those countries that wished to go much further than we did that in practice we have released exchange controls and have freedom of capital movements, while some of those whose rhetoric was to the fore in the Milan Council have not done either of those things as yet, and some will not do it now. As my right hon. Friend made very clear, we were right. The treaty amendment is very modest. However, I doubt whether every country will free exchange controls, although Germany is anxious that capital movement should be freed.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the Prime Minister regard the result of the European Council as a significant advance towards majority voting and more effective decision making? Is it again, in her view, just a question of "that much", or is this a significant advance?
The Prime Minister: If the articles that are enumerated in the treaty are passed, it will be a significant advance for the internal market. As the debate and discussion continued, it became obvious that those countries whose rhetoric had been the highest were among those who put a reserve on, for example, majority voting for transport matters in the Community. They are of great importance to us. As the right hon. Gentleman is very much aware, there was a big gap between the rhetoric and what they
432
were prepared to agree in practice. We had a small reservation about one matter. Other countries had reservations about the whole matter.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Was it not a little daft to make significant concessions in order to achieve a piece of paper on the so-called completion of the market, when France has today imposed a complete ban upon all lamb imports and apparently we cannot do a single thing about it?
Was it wise for the Government to concede the veto on article 28 relating to changes to the common external tariff? Will not this mean that the majority of the member states can go ahead with a protectionist regime and that there is nothing that Britain can do about it?
The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's last point, he is aware that trade matters are for the European Community. We agree that sometimes by unanimity and sometimes by majority. Some of them are already agreed by majority.
As for my hon. Friend's question about lamb, that was not a matter for treaty amendment, so we were not considering it.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Prime Minister clarify her view about the long-term objective of political union within a fully federal united states of Europe, about which a great deal is regularly said in the Commission and elsewhere? Is she aware that an overwhelming majority of the British people would not only reject it but would believe that the policies designed to deal with unemployment in Britian could not be carried through under the treaty as it now stands?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe in the concept of a united states of Europe, nor do I believe that it would ever be attainable. The whole history is completely different, so I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that matter. I am constantly saying that I wish that they would talk less about European and political union. The terms are not understood in this country. In so far as they are understood over there, they mean a good deal less than some people over here think they mean.
Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated upon a personal diplomatic success in ensuring that there is a high degree of practical content in these institutional agreements. One of the most striking features of the discussions seems to have been the silence of other delegations on the much discussed question of the revision of the Luxembourg compromise. How does my right hon. Friend envisage the future operation of majority voting procedures in the Community?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is very much aware, the Luxembourg compromise will still be applied even when there is majority voting, provided that a very important national interest is involved. He will also be aware that at Milan we said that we should write down that interest so that it could be clearly defined and seen by other delegations. However, my hon. Friend is right. Other delegations did not pursue that matter, so presumably the Luxembourg compromise will operate as it does now by the declaration of a particular point that is of very important national interest.
Mr. Eric Deakins: What advantages does the Prime Minister now see in amendments to the basic treaties to extend the legislative powers of the

433
European Assembly and the competence of the Commission which she did not appreciate when she made her statement against treaty amendments after the Milan summit?
The Prime Minister: Most of the changes that have been made under the text on the European Assembly, which are modest, could in our view, have been done by discussion without amending the treaty because the last word will continue to remain with the Council. Only two changes in the text would not have been undertaken otherwise. First, where there is an application for new accessions from a different country to the Community, the Assembly could, by withholding its consent, stop that application. Secondly, where there is an application for a new association agreement between third countries and the Community, the Assembly could, by failing to give its consent, stop it. Those are the only differences, except that we shall consult more with the Assembly before decisions are taken.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Could my right hon. Friend say whether this modest step in the direction of majority voting, which is surely inevitable if the 12 nation Community is not to be paralysed, is itself threatened by the possibility of one of the signatories to the summit agreement applying a veto to its implementation?
The Prime Minister: Yes. If Italy and Denmark maintain their general reserve, the matter could not be passed by each sovereign Parliament. Italy has undertaken to see what the European Assembly's views are before she makes up her mind. Denmark has certain constitutional problems, which she might be able to resolve, in which case, if Italy could go ahead, we could go ahead and bring the matters before the House.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister has made a statement to the House on a meeting which she did not want to take place, on an agenda which she did not want to discuss, and on agreements which she did not want to make? How did that come about?
The Prime Minister: The meeting would have taken place anyway because—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman misses the point. If it had not been called the "intergovernmental conference", the same people as sit on the European Council would have met at the same place at the same time.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Although I welcome the agreement as far as it goes, may I ask my right hon. Friend if she is of the view that protection and promotion of national interests should be synonymous with joining more wholeheartedly with our European member neighbours on monetary and economic policy, particularly on full membership of the European monetary system? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it is time for us to be in the vanguard rather than the rearguard of such movements?
The Prime Minister: I have said, and it remains our policy, that we shall join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system when we believe that the time is appropriate. We do not believe that it is so at present.
As for being in the lead on monetary matters, as I said earlier, there are many matters on which we are well in the lead, both in the absence of a foreign exchange control and
434
in capital movement. It would be a great benefit to further monetary co-operation if some of the states who are members of the EMS would follow our lead.
Mr. Alex Carlile: While in Luxembourg, was the Prime Minister informed by the French Government that they would ignore the communality of the so-called complete Common Market by putting a ban two days later on the import of British sheepmeat? Will she tell the sheep farmers of Wales what the Government will do about the ban?
The Prime Minister: Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take up the matter, because we negotiated the agreement on lamb, and it is beneficial to the hon. and learned Gentleman's farmers in Wales and to farmers throughout the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman's comments reflect my earlier point that other countries have an enormous gap between their rhetoric about what they want to do and what they do in practice. The whole time, part of our task has been to diminish their expectations, and to bring them down from the clouds to practical matters.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Since there is no pretence that United Kingdom lamb is banned from being exported to France on health grounds, will my right hon. Friend inform the Commission and the Council of Ministers that she will not place before the House any motion to ratify the Luxembourg agreements until the French comply with the basic elements of the original treaty of Rome in allowing free movement of agricultural produce of that sort?
The Prime Minister: If that action trespasses against the Community's law, it will be a matter for the Commission to take to the European Court.
With regard to the point about not putting matters before the House should Denmark and Italy not lift their reserve, I must point out to my hon. Friend that some of the matters, especially those relating to the internal market, would be helpful to our insurance business and financial services setting up in Europe, because one vote against has stopped many people from establishing themselves in Europe as they can in this country. It would be wrong to hold that up because it would not help the problems to which my hon. Friend correctly refers.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Prime Minister say in what circumstances in future negotiations she will invoke the Luxembourg compromise?
The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. One has to wait for the negotiations. As the hon. Member will be aware, we sometimes have to consider the Luxembourg compromise, in particular, with regard to agriculture.
Mr. Michael McNair Wilson: In her statement, my right hon. Friend referred to the Community attitude to terrorism. Did the Irish Prime Minister use the Council meeting as an opportunity for him to sign the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, as promised at the time of the Anglo-Irish agreement?
The Prime Minister: The European convention on the suppression of terrorism is not the Community's convention. The Taoiseach and I met and reviewed the position following the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement and confirmed that the agreement would be implemented as planned. I hope that the signing of that convention will take place.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Prime Minister reconsider her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) about the European Assembly's powers? Is she aware that in the communiqué issued yesterday article 149 of the present treaty, which contains five lines, was replaced by a new article of about 35 lines? It refers to the Assembly's increased powers of consultation and recommendation. Does not the inclusion of such a proposal in the treaty constitute a change in that Assembly's powers and require an amendment to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 passed by this House?
The Prime Minister: Increased consultation with the European Assembly was taking place in any event. It was proposed by us at the Milan Council but without treaty amendment. It has now been put into a treaty amendment, but in that amendment the last word stays with the Council, as was made clear by the President's communiqué.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Was my right hon. Friend able to make progress with our European partners on the pledge contained in the document "Lifting the Burden" on raising the VAT threshold to £50,000? Does she agree that that would remove a serious burden from small firms?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will be aware, our VAT threshold for small firms is considerably higher than those in the Community. We are strongly advocating the retention of our limit. I agree that we should like it higher, although that view is not shared by everyone in this country. At the moment, we insist upon retaining our level, although in its calculations the Community says that it is too high.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: How much did the summit cost? How much will it add to the £4,726 million net that the British taxpayer has had to find in the first 10 years of Britain's membership of the Common Market? Those are the questions that people ask in Bolsover, not all the gobbledegook that we have heard from the Prime Minister. Is it not a rather strange state of affairs that we have a Prime Minister who constantly tells the British nation that there will be no meetings at No. 10 with beer and sandwiches, but at the moment when they decide to have a Common Market summit, with all its banqueting, junketing and claret—even though it is a meeting that the Prime Minister does not think is important—she gets on the first aeroplane?
The Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will convey to his most distinguished constituents of Bolsover the fact that the Government are in favour of having only two European Councils a year instead of three, and that I hope that we shall implement that next year.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's efforts to play down this nonevent at Luxembourg on the ground, as she put it, that it would have happened anyway. May I remind her that before going to the summit she and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated time and again that in their view there was no need for any changes in the treaty of Rome? How does she justify the change of policy which, presumably, need not have happened?
The Prime Minister: We could have made most of the changes without amendments to the treaty. We could have done it by agreement among the same people, who would be called a European Council instead of an intergovernment conference. If one belongs to a Community, one has to take into account other people's views, particularly if one wants some of the changes that are being made to enable some of our people to establish themselves in the Community, which they cannot now do. We wanted something from our European partners and they wanted something from us. It seemed a reasonable compromise.
Mr. Stuart Bell: With reference to the question put earlier by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about how the treaty modifications affect unemployment, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the modifications in relation to the environment, the regional fund and technology will affect stricken regions such as Cleveland? Is the Prime Minister aware that Cleveland has the highest unemployment rate in the country? Are the treaty modifications designed to increase and improve the flow of funds to areas such as Cleveland?
The Prime Minister: The treaty modifications are called cohesions. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there were two funds operating under the treaty which were contained in the treaty. The third fund, the regional fund, had not been a matter for the treaty. We put the regional fund into the treaty and we put into it that the areas which have been subject to industrial decline and change should also rank for payments from that fund and for consideration in any review of the three funds. We have retained the status quo on that matter. Again, it could have been done without the treaty. The amendments on the environment and technology show more precisely the activities which were previously taking place under article 235.
I believe that the changes in the internal market can help a number of people. The general policy to try to have more job creation is set out in the economic report which is being considered by the European Council, and whose general thrust was approved by us.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: My right hon. Friend deserves congratulations on achieving a significant, but in some respects still modest, agreement which takes the Community further forward. Does she agree that after 12 years of membership, following 12 years of negotiating entry, it is high time that the United Kingdom pitched in with much more integration and co-operation with the other member states to create general extra prosperity for all member states? Accepting the House's endorsement of the measure when it is presented to the House in due course—which I am sure will happen—does my right hon. Friend also accept that this is a first step which should be used to continue in the future the process of co-operation and integration, involving the European Parliament at the margin more and more? As a gesture of Christmas monetary confidence, would it not be a good idea to join the European monetary system without delay?
The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. One does not do such things at Christmas or any other time unless it is in Britain's interest to do so. I believe that it is right to have more consultation and co-operation with the European Assembly, but it is difficult enough to reach decisions with 10, let alone 12, members of the European Economic

437
Community. If the decision has also to take place in conjunction with the European Assembly, we should never have any. I am sorry, but that is what I believe. Therefore, we have not given more powers to the European Assembly. In general, we have kept the final word with the Council. The European Assembly has extra rights to consultation and to make amendments.
Mr. James Wallace: The Prime Minister has reported on the limited progress made at the Council, which will involve some alterations to the treaty. Was any progress made on the articles in the treaty which are awaiting fulfilment, specifically article 138 on the uniform electoral system to be used for elections to the Assembly? If not, why not?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir, because I believe that they are neither desirable nor would they be agreed.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does the Prime Minister agree that the best way of reinvigorating our economy and that of Europe and thereby creating more jobs is to create companies in Europe capable of holding their own in international competition? Does she agree that the steps that the Government have taken to complete the European market are the best way to provide the kind of home market that is available to competitors based in the United States and Japan?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At our insistence, an extra clause was added to the article on technology stating that technological cooperation will work to the advantage of job creation only if the producers can see the whole of Europe as a single market similar in size to that of the United States. We believe that that would make more jobs available to the British people.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will allow questions to continue for a further five minutes, but I remind the House that there are other statements to be made.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made some robust and reassuring remarks about the European union. Will she clarify any speculation by stating categorically that during the time of her premiership she will not ask the House to agree to a European act of union?
The Prime Minister: I do not understand what is meant by a European act of union, but I assure my hon. Friend that I would never commend to the House a federation equivalent to a United States of Europe.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that lurking near the top of her statement today and of other statements that she has made is the obvious pressure placed upon her by other Common Market nations for more integration, more interference and more power for the European Assembly? Will she state clearly that her opinion is against any such action?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We often hear such talk at Councils. On each occasion, the Government's task is to bring the rhetoric back to reality, which is that other countries—with one or two exceptions—tend to take the same view as we do. Indeed they sometimes do not observe the conditions
438
of the treaty as well as we do and they frequently put reserves on particular matters that are in their interest to a greater extent than we do.
The Government are wary of greater integration except on matters such as the internal market which are to our advantage. We are also very anxious to protect British interests where they differ from the rest of the Market—for example, in animal health and farm matters where, because we are an island, we have and shall retain different systems of protection.
With regard to the question of further interference, I firmly hold that any treaty changes must be a matter for each and every sovereign parliament.
Mr. Frank Cook: The Prime Minister has laid great emphasis on the need for a spirit of compromise, particularly with regard to greater integration. Does that mean that the House will hear in future of a possible Anglo-Spanish agreement in line with the Anglo-Irish agreement? If there is such a prospect, what provision will be made for a process to self-determination for the Gibraltarians?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the position of the Gibraltarians is protected in their constitution and will continue to be protected.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. Friend expect the European Parliament to consider the proposals at its meeting next week? [HON. MEMBERS: "Assembly, not Parliament."] The Prime Minister will know that I do not share the obsession of my colleagues with the distinction between Assembly and Parliament. Will there not be a paradox if we do not accept the verdict of the European Parliament to which we seek to give more consultative powers?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that there will be a paradox. The European Assembly is different from our national sovereign Parliament. Any changes to the treaty are a matter for each and every sovereign Parliament to which we as a Government are responsible. I think that it is reasonable to consult the European Assembly. My hon. Friend may have been to the Assembly more often than I, but it is the differences between the European Assembly and a national sovereign Parliament which impress me more than the similarities.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the agreement which has been reached on assessing the effects of Euro regulations and directives on businesses will be very welcome, especially to small firms? How will the proposal be implemented if, for example, a particular directive is seen to be unduly burdensome for small firms?
The Prime Minister: The President of the Commission is setting up a unit within the Commission which will examine every new directive or regulation and assess the costs that would be added to businesses before the directives are implemented. The unit will also look at existing regulations in that light and report to the relevant groups considering them. That is a good move, though. I confess that I expressed a certain amount of scepticism about it because when the unit was proposed regulations were being made which were needlessly detailed and would add considerable cost to small businesses and others. The Government have rightly resisted such

439
proposals and will continue to resist them. By setting up the unit, the Commission is making an effort. I hope that it will produce the results that we want.
Mr. Keith Best: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is so much opposition from Labour Members, particularly from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), to closer monetary and economic co-operation within Europe because such co-operation would be a permanent safeguard against the implementation of full-bloodied Socialist policies in this country?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that there can be any safeguard against that happening except to make sure that it never does.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is it not clear that in foreign policy matters and on all important issues each member state acts according to its own national interests? Is not the pretence and rhetoric of a common policy on foreign affairs dangerous in that it leads to muddle and misunderstanding?
The Prime Minister: The leading article states:
"That being members of the European Community, we shall endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a European foreign policy".
Of course, each member state has its own particular national interests by virtue of history and of economic and geographical differences. If differences exist, we maintain them and act in our own interests, but it is equally in the interests of all member states to act together if we can on certain matters because we are very much stronger by so doing. One of the reasons for coming together in Europe was to be the most powerful market in the world and to have more power in negotiating trading matters with other nations. Sometimes it is in our interests to act separately, and sometimes it is very much in our interests to act together.
Sir William Clark: Following my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), is she aware that many hon. Members think that the threshold for VAT, at £19,500, acts as a deterrent, especially to small businesses? While it is true that some thresholds within the Common Market are lower than ours, does my right hon. Friend agree that the rates in those cases are much lower than 15 per cent.?
The Prime Minister: There are a number of differences between us and the Community on tax matters. That is why we have been so anxious to limit the Community's capacity to make more taxation regulations. I want to maintain our VAT threshold, but the Community is already at us because it thinks that our threshold is too high. It was because of those differences that we insisted at the intergovernmental conference that changes in taxation should come about only by unanimous rule. We do not want to get into more difficulties of the kind involved in the threshold directive.

Business of the House
4.20 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on the Channel fixed link on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Afterwards there will be a debate on a motion to take note of European Community documents relating to hormone growth promoters. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 10 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Gas Bill.
Remaining stages of the European Communities (Spanish and Portuguese Accession) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER—Opposition day—(2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Housing Crisis and Urban Deprivation".
Motion relating to the Crown Prosecution Service (Transfer of Staff) Regulations.
There will be a debate on a motion to take note of European Community documents relating to the European regional development fund. Details of the documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 12 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.
Motion on the Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order.
FRIDAY 13 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 16 DECEMBER—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Remaining stages of the Education (Amendment) Bill.
Motion on the Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations.
It is expected that the Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that it will be proposed that, subject to the progress of business, the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 20 December until Monday 13 January.

[Debate on Monday 9 December

Relevant Documents

(a) 7948/84

Draft Directive to amend Directive 81/602 on use of hormones in animals

(b) Unnumbered

Amendment to Document No. 7948/84

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 78-xxxv (1983–84) paragraph 1

(b) HC 21-ii (1985–86 paragraph 1

Debate on Wednesday 11 December

Relevant Documents

(c) 9563/84

Report on European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

(d) 9506/85

Tenth Report on ERDF 1984

Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at Prime Minister's Question Time the Prime Minister said that the memorandum of understanding on British participation in the strategic defence initiative research was still being negotiated? Will he give an undertaking that before such an agreement is signed we shall have at the very least a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence, but preferably a debate, so that the views of the House can be properly put on such a vital matter?
Secondly, why is Monday's debate on the Channel fixed link to take place on a motion for the Adjournment, and not on an amendable motion, as the latter procedure would have allowed a much clearer declaration of views and presentation of arguments?
As proposed amendments to the EEC treaties will require legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to provide proper time—I refer not just to the length of time, but to the need to debate these matters at appropriate times of the day—for consideration of any changes?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is mounting concern in all parts of the House and outside about matters relating to the City of London and its role in the British economy? Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a full debate on those matters before Christmas and in Government time?
Why have the remaining stages of the Education (Amendment) Bill and the motion on the Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations been put down together for debate on Monday week? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is an entirely inappropriate way to go about that business because, although the issues are related, they are separate matters and should come before the House separately? Will he reconsider the timing of that brace of debates?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 14 November I asked for a debate on the wild allegations by the Minister of State, Home Office about hon. Members who were legally helping visitors to secure entry to this country at ports of entry? When related matters were raised yesterday, the Leader of the House suggested that they should be raised on next week's business and that he would treat the matter seriously. When are we to have a debate during which the House can discuss the original allegations and related matters of interest?
Finally, why are details of the licence which will give the privatised British Gas Corporation a 25-year monopoly and establish the price formula and provisions for standing and other charges to be published only one day before the Second Reading debate on Tuesday? That document must surely exist already. Why are the Government afraid to release it this week so that it can receive proper consideration?
Mr. Biffen: I shall take the various points in reverse order.
With regard to the debate on the Gas Bill, I appreciate that the schedule is very tight and that it is inconvenient
442
that the licensing document could not be made available earlier. There is, however, nothing sinister or wayward about the timing of the release of that document so that it can feature in the Second Reading debate.
As for the recent allegations about observance of the immigration rules, I said in the context of the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that I would look into the matter, as it was alleged, among other things, that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office had made documents available to a newspaper. I understand that he has since written to the hon. Lady making it clear that that was not so. I am sure that she will be pleased to have that information. I have been in contact with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the desirability of making a statement on the wider issue, and he hopes to be able to do so before the Christmas recess.
On the education matters, there is clearly a difference of view between the right hon. Member and myself. I should have thought that the similarity of the documents probably outweighed the disparate aspects, but if the right hon. Gentleman feels deeply about it perhaps we may look at it again through the usual channels.
As we are moving towards publication of the Bill relating to financial services, the debate on that measure will be an important occasion for the consideration of many of the wider issues concerning the City, as the right hon. Gentleman has requested. I cannot give a guarantee from the Dispatch Box today about the precise timing of that debate, but again that matter can be pursued through the usual channels.
I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the desirability of allowing proper time for reflection on any proposed changes to European Community treaties.
As for the debate on the Channel fixed link, I believe that to proceed by way of a motion for the Adjournment is legitimate when the Government are still taking, part in the consultative process. When the Government have decided what feasible proposals exist, we can consider the matter further.
As for the desirability of a statement or debate before any signature is put to British participation in the strategic defence initiative, we shall, of course, be happy to discuss that through the usual channels.
Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the appalling ill-treatment of political prisoners in Poland which led my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to send for the Polish ambassador a few days ago to make a vigorous protest about a situation which, incredibly, seems to have worsened since the summit meeting at which President Reagan properly raised the question of human rights, may I make a plea for a foreign affairs debate before Christmas in which the House can express its strong feelings about such barbarities and the damage that they do to the whole issue of détente?
Mr. Biffen: I shall raise that point with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand that I have every sympathy with his argument. I am not the possessor of chat much Government time between now and Christmas, and my hon. Friend might like to take the opportunities that are provided by the debates that will arise on the Adjournment.
Mr. David Alton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when there will be a debate on our prayer opposing the Local Government Reorganisation (Transitional Provisions) Order 1985, about which I wrote to him on 2 December? When will there be a statement on the possible loss of up to 2,000 jobs in the Daily Mirror group of newspapers?
Mr. Biffen: I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman about the order. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the importance of the second point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his reply on the Financial Services Bill? I ask him to give this the utmost priority. Does he agree that it is essential that we have the Bill as quickly as possible so that we can set up effective regulatory bodies, so that any suggestion of misdemeanour within the finance services can be dealt with immediately and thus avoid and obviate unfounded rumours that can do only damage to the City of London?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes his point effectively and supports other hon. Members who have also made that point. I take full account of the importance of having a debate as early as possible, but I cannot guarantee when.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement next week, or at least before the Christmas recess, on whether the Government are prepared to allow a free vote on the Shops Bill? Is he aware of the increasingly strong feeling, not least on his own Benches, that it would be outrageous for such a Bill, if it ever gets through the other place, to be run through this House with a three-line Whip?
Mr. Biffen: I am tolerably modest in ambition, and I have no ambition to take over questions which can properly be answered only by the Patronage Secretary.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: If my right hon. Friend is considering acceding to the request of the Leader of the Opposition for the House to discuss abuse by certain hon. Members with regard to immigration, will he bear in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) yesterday made a complaint against my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and alleged that he had passed confidential correspondence to the press? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that was quite untrue and that the hon. Lady must have known that because her secretary had been told that morning by the Home Office that the Minister had had nothing to do with it? Will my right hon. Friend consider how the rights, interests and good name of Members can be protected from such accusations, even if the Member concerned is a Minister? There should be an opportunity for a Minister to reject such complaints of improper conduct.
Mr. Biffen: As I have already said, I understand that my hon. and learned Friend has written to the hon. Lady. She is not in the Chamber, and I shall not raise the level of controversy in her absence. The letter was sent in good faith, and I am sure that it will be received in good faith.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate, not immediately, but
444
early in the new year, on various aspects of nuclear policy that are now causing concern? I refer to the figures given on the Yorkshire Television programme this week on incidences of cancer and leukaemia that have never been made public, to the Australian Royal Commission, to the fact that there are still discharges from nuclear installations, to the report that the country is short of plutonium for the nuclear weapons programme and also to the impending report of the Sizewell inquiry. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that involves the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy? Will he make the Government's policy clear on a matter that is causing increasing public concern?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman persuasively reminds the House of the great importance of the nuclear topic and that it covers many areas of Government responsibility. I shall consider his remarks, but the right hon. Gentleman is a formidable parliamentarian and I am sure that he will be able to find his own ways of raising the matter in the House.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the fact that the cost of the proposed joint defence school of music on the coast has now shot up to £10.6 million, and that it would be better to allow the Royal Military School of Music to remain at Kneller Hall in Twickenham, where it produces the finest and most excellent Army bands in the world?
Mr. Biffen: I am happy to endorse the voice of Twickenham. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the points that my hon. Friend has so eloquently made. I think he will find that an investigation is being carried out by the Public Accounts Committee, and it may be possible for him to give evidence to that Committee.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Can the right hon. Gentleman yet foresee the date on which the motion for the recess is likely to be moved?
Mr. Biffen: No, but I appreciate that there will be interest in the House that that information be made available as soon as possible.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will ask the House to renew the ten minutes rule on speeches, as that limit proved to be a great success?
Mr. Biffen: I hope to be able to do so shortly after we return from the recess.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the Leader of the House find time after Christmas for a full debate on the future of the British merchant fleet? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the decline that we have experienced in recent years both in gross registered tonnage and in the number of vessels. I hope he agrees that it would be in the interests of the country and the House to have a full debate on the market opportunities, and also on the fiscal policies, which are crucial if we are to halt the decline, or possibly encourage a growth, in the number of vessels under the British flag.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman draws the attention of the House to an immensely important part of the national economy. I do not wish to mislead him into thinking that there is likely to be Government time

445
available shortly after Christmas for such a debate, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the points that he has made.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: In view of the immense publicity that has been given by the Church of England to the inner cities of what it calls Britain, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the inner cities of Scotland so that we may remind the Church of England that Britain is not England? In Scotland we live in the centre of our cities, such as Perth, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness. We thrive there and, thanks to the Government, they are prosperous and restored.
Mr. Biffen: I am loth to get into more controversy concerning the established Church, but it seems that the Opposition, who are casting themselves as rather more ecumenical than the Church of England, have exactly the debate that my hon. and learned Friend wants which will enable Scotland to be included.
Mr. Roland Boyes rose—
Mr. Speaker: Yes. [Interruption.]
Mr. Boyes: I wondered why I was not being called until last.
Does the Leader of the House recall that during recent business questions I informed him that the Supreme Court of Military Appeal was considering the fate of the Turkish Peace Executive? The court met, and adjourned until later this month. I must stress again to the right hon. Gentleman the importance that the Turkish authorities give to the voice of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman informed me that the Foreign Secretary would hear what I was saying. I have had no contact whatsoever with the Foreign Secretary. May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on this important matter, because the fate of many people who are in prison for doing nothing more than wanting peace in the world is at stake? They have suffered for long enough in lousy conditions in a rotten gaol.
Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the matter and have it referred once again to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I shall draw attention to the point that has been made. I know that, understandably, the hon. Gentleman takes the issue very much to heart, so I suggest that he tries his luck with one of the debates arising on the Consolidated Fund.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). I had not forgotten him; it is merely that I am so used to seeing him on the Front Bench.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As the flavour of the month in a small part of the House, unpalatable to the majority, seems to be proportional representation, would it be possible for the House to debate the subject? As parliamentarian of the year and Leader of the House, will my right hon. Friend give us a lead, and does he agree that, even in the unlikely event of a hung Parliament and a referendum, he, like me, would oppose proportional representation root and branch?
Mr. Biffen: No. I have always assumed that proportional representation will be negotiable in the most fascinating political circumstances. I would never put that card face up so early in the game. For that reason, I have no wish to use Government time to have the matter debated. Now that Opposition time for debate is available below the Gangway, we shall see how much importance those hon. Members attach to it and whether they will bring the matter before the House.
Mrs. Renée Short: May I remind the Leader of the House that in the 1983–84 Session the Select Committee on Social Services carried out a major inquiry into child care, and that some of the recommendations that we made were recently reiterated in connection with the tragic case of little Jasmine? For example, we recommended that family courts should be set up. We are still waiting for the Lord Chancellor to present his proposals. We proposed that more black foster parents should be found, and that there should be three years' training for social workers. The Government's reply was received in July 1984, 18 months go. Will the Leader of the House now undertake to give a day to debate the report and the reply at the earliest opportunity—if possible before Christmas and, if not, immediately after the House returns from the Christmas recess?
Mr. Biffen: Clearly the issue is of considerable and topical importance. I shall draw the hon. Lady's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who will be answering questions next Tuesday. However, it also could be one of the topics that might interest the House in the Adjournment debates following the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. Keith Best: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no agreement has been reached in principle by the Government with the French Government on the nature of a fixed link across the Channel? May I add my encouragement to the suggestion that we should debate the Financial Services Bill as early as possible, preferably before Christmas, to ensure continuing confidence in what is, particularly at this time, a most energetic and encouraging market?
Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for his point about the Financial Services Bill. There is no doubt that this measure is of great importance in its own right and in trying to establish a better situation in the light of some of the recent developments in the City. On my hon. Friend's first point, I am in no sense qualified to answer a point of policy. It is an issue that should be raised on Monday.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: With regard to Monday's debate on the Channel fixed link, is my right hon. Friend aware that concern is felt in all parts of the House about the usual Channel link fixers, who have arranged for the debate on a motion for the Adjournment, which is unamendable? Is he aware that the so-called consultative process to which he referred is in danger of becoming a farce, because journalists have been told that on 15 or 16 January the winner of the fixed link contract will be announced? If that is so, the decision will have been made with indecent haste and unnecessary secrecy, and without all the facts being presented to the House. Parliament is in danger of being fobbed off.
Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept that. It is a caricature of the Government's position. There is nothing extraordinary

447
about great decisions being taken on the basis of motions on the Adjournment. If it was enough to bring down Neville Chamberlain, it is enough for many of the other decisions in the House. We must see how the debate goes on Monday. There is no doubt that it will be an important part in the consultative process of making decisions and judgments on the issue.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: May I remind my right hon. Friend of a question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Fan) about the racial awareness unit courses being conducted by Leicester city council? Is he aware that today, in response to questions by the Leicester Mercury, the leader of the Labour group, Councillor Peter Soulsby, said that he would deny the opportunity to all council employees in Leicester to carry on working if they declined or refused—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking about business next week, because he must?
Mr. Bruinvels: The point is that many of my constituents who work for the council are feeling threatened, and I am asking my right hon. Friend to find time next week for a debate on an important matter. Citizens of Leicester who work for the city council are being denied the opportunity to work if they refuse to go on a racial awareness unit course, which is a scandal. Should not my right hon. Friend find time for such a debate?
Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I admire the skill, tenacity and effectiveness with which he brings it before the House and, indeed, before the public in Leicester. I fear that there will not be Government time next week for such a debate, but we are moving into that part of the Session where there are more opportunities than usual for Back-Bench Members. I wish my hon. Friend every success in that direction.

UNESCO
4.46 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Britain played a prominent part in the creation of UNESCO. We continue to support the ideals and objectives contained in its constitution, but the House will be aware of the Government's long-standing doubt about the effectiveness with which UNESCO has been pursuing them. Among our concerns is the degree to which its work has been harmfully politicised; the organisation has been used to attack those very values which it was designed to uphold. Then there has been inefficient management. That has led to programmes which contain vague and meaningless studies, duplication with the work of other agencies, and lack of discrimination in the creation of projects. There have been serious weaknesses in staff management, and excessive expenditure and staffing at the Paris headquaters.
Although we have put forward firm proposals for reform and worked hard, particularly at the recent general conference at Sofia, to secure their adoption, the results, in our judgment, fall well short of what we believe could justify continued British membership. The Government have therefore decided that the notice to leave given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in his letter of 5 December 1984 to the Director-General will not be withdrawn. The United Kingdom will cease to be a member from 31 December 1985.
That decision is in no way aimed at the United Nations system as a whole. But we are determined that our support for the United Nations should be seen as support for effective and efficient organisations. Unfortunately, UNESCO is not such a body.
We shall not be cutting back on international cooperation in the fields now covered by UNESCO. The money saved from our contribution will be used through the aid programme to further educational, scientific and other activities designed to benefit developing countries, particularly in the Commonwealth. In this way there will be more support for education, for the most part to be carried out through the British Council. We have particularly in mind increased allocations for training in this country for students from poor countries in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. In science, we shall certainly continue to support the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and the international geological correlation programme, and make other arrangements for assisting international science, including, for example, programmes in soil and water management in arid and semi-arid countries in Africa. We shall give further details to the House in due course.
Because of the importance that we attach to the underlying principles of UNESCO's work, the Government plan to maintain observer status in the organisation. It is sad that an organisation which began with such high hopes and to which this country has contributed so much should have gone so wrong. We have to deal with what the organisation has become. We must

449
resolutely ensure that the resources saved for the aid programme, as a result of leaving UNESCO, are spent in the most useful way.
Mr. George Foulkes: We have just heard a shabby and disgraceful statement. It is a kick in the teeth for the Third world and it is another step on the road to Britain's isolation in the world. Will the Minister confirm that all informed commentators reported that, at the UNESCO conference in Sofia, substantial progress was made towards the reforms demanded by the British Government? The need for reform was the basis of our notice of withdrawal. That notice should be rescinded, not confirmed.
Will the Minister concede that all the countries of the Commonwealth, our EC partners, all the members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the United Kingdom Commission for UNESCO, and all but one of the speakers who participated in our debate on UNESCO, urged the British Government to stay within UNESCO? Does he accept that the decision announced today shows that the Government's so-called consultation was a farce, a sham, and a fraud?
Will the Minister confess to the House that yesterday Mr. John Kerr, the political counsellor at our embassy in Washington, informed Mr. Milton Korner of the US State Department of this decision? That was done before the House and even the Cabinet were informed. That proves that the withdrawal is another pathetic capitulation to United States pressure. The Minister claims that the money released will stay with the overseas development budget. We support that, but it is no substitute for the effective, multilateral co-operation of UNESCO.
The Minister's heart is not in this statement as he clearly disagrees with what he is forced to say. I am surprised that he is able to continue in office. I assure the House, the country and, above all, our friends in the Commonwealth, the Community and beyond that after the next election the Labour Government will restore Britain to its rightful place in UNESCO.
Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman said that this is a kick in the teeth for the Third world. The details that I gave in my statement about what we will do to support science, education and culture in the Third world shows that that is simply not the case.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that there was substantial progress at Sofia. There was some progress, but not enough in many important areas; and the results of Sofia were disappointing.
Of course, there have been strong expressions of opinion against the decision to leave UNESCO, but equally strong opinion has been in favour of this decision, including the opinion of some distinguished scholars.
What the hon. Gentleman said about information given in Washington is untrue. Throughout the whole of the operation we have never been subjected to pressure from the United States Government to leave UNESCO.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: The indignation generated by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is far beyond what is reasonale and rings false. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the many distinguished academics and others who have been in favour of withdrawal? No one can accuse such people as Ralf Dahrendorf, Lord Blake or Sir Alan Cockerell of being nasty, narrow nationalists.
450
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee hoped that it would be possible to reform UNESCO from within? We are sorry to hear that the Government do not think that that is possible and are only partly assuaged by the fact that much of the resources previously made available to UNESCO will be devoted under the national banner to the same admirable purposes.
Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right about the rather spurious, exaggerated indignation shown by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). It is true that a number of distinguished scholars have supported our decision, including, apart from those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), Lord Annan. I read with care and attention what the Select Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend, had to say.
Although I accept that there has been some reform, it is our judgment that the degree of reform achieved is insufficient.
Mr. Tony Benn: The reasons that the Minister gave today will not be believed outside the ranks of his own party. It is known that the United States wished the British Government to leave UNESCO, and to that extent reinforced the Government's hostility to the international organisation. Britain's decision to withdraw comes at a time when President Reagan, at the recent summit with Mr. Gorbachev, has announced that the United States would enter into educational, scientific and cultural arrangements with the Societ Union with a view to building a more peaceful world. At that moment the Government decide to kick the principle of universality out of their own thinking.
The damage will be done to Britain, and it will be a price that we shall have to pay. We were one of the prime founders of UNESCO and played a notable part in making it meaningful. We are perfectly able to continue to operate within UNESCO if the Government are not hostile to its real purpose, which is to build peace in the minds of men.
Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman has a mania of finding conspiracy wherever he looks. We have been under no pressure from the United States Government to make this decision. They have pursued their policy quite independently of our own. I say firmly to the right hon. Gentleman that, although we have decided that this international organisation is not doing its job effectively, that in no sense means that we are opposed to international organisations or the United Nations.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: As a former senior official at the United Nations, this is a sad occasion for me. It is sad because the Government are absolutely right, not because they are wrong. UNESCO has become a disgrace to international organisations. It has a reputation which is perverted from its original intentions I look forward to the day when this nation can rejoin a truly United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority, both as a scholar and as a former servant of the United Nations. I suggest that Opposition members listen carefully to what he says. If conditions change radically, we shall be able to think again about the matter in the future.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: This was preeminently a Cabinet decision and I am sure that the Minister, to his credit, was almost certainly opposed to it. It would have been more appropriate if the decision had been announced to the House by a member of the Cabinet who believed in this foolish and short-sighted decision.
How can the Government pretend that they wish to advance political co-operation in Europe when they ignore the unanimous advice of our partners on a matter such as this?
Mr. Raison: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has an extremely important meeting in Madrid this afternoon and therefore cannot be here. I am the Minister who has had responsibility for dealing with UNESCO throughout the past two years and it is right that I should be making the statement.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: I accept and welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that the money saved will be spent in other parts of the aid budget. However, is it not a fact that the decision will be bitterly regretted throughout the Commonwealth? Is it not in real danger of being misunderstood as the turning of Britain's back on the developing world?
Mr. Raison: I respect the views of my right hon. and learned Friend, but I put it to him that the measures that I have announced on which we shall spend the money that will be saved by leaving UNESCO will be of direct practical value to and will be welcomed by the Commonwealth. I accept that opposition has been expressed by Commonwealth countries, but it is notable that they did not raise the matter at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nassau, when they had every chance to do so.
Mr. Guy Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly how much practical good will come as a consequence of this decision? Does he realise that the lack of the British subscription will cut some of the most valuable work that UNESCO undertakes, that many of the abuses to which he objects will continue regardless and that we shall lose all the influence over the future of UNESCO which we have been able to exert over the past year? It cannot be true that the sort of work that UNESCO has done can be undertaken by the British Council, however good that organisation may be.
Mr. Raison: Much of the work that UNESCO is doing is not worth doing, whereas all the things that we intend to do with the money that will be saved will be thoroughly worth while.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement will be received with deep sadness and will be greeted by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with a certain degree of bitterness? We shall leave our friends in UNESCO to argue our case and continue the battle that my right hon. Friend began so well and pursued with such vigilance. The case that the British nation wishes to be argued embraces the philosophies, language and cultural traditions which we enjoy and have been able to spread throughout the world through the auspices of UNESCO. We shall leave our friends alone and they will bitterly regret our absence. I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that it cannot be in Britain's interests to reduce our influence in such an important international organisation.
Mr. Raison: I understand that my hon. Friend feels strongly about these matters. However, we worked extremely hard, as I think is recognised on both sides of the House, to secure reform within UNESCO, right up to the conference at Sofia. When it came to the crunch, the degree of reform that we were able to achieve in certain very important areas was, in our judgment, not enough. That is why we have made this decision.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Does the Minister understand that many Members on both sides of the House consider this to be a dark day for Britain and the Third world, and that the Government's decision will do nothing to further education interests? Will he tell us what areas of dissatisfaction he believes were not satisfied by the reforms over the past year? Will he confirm that the British Council has not requested that money should be transferred to it and that it believes that the money would be much better spent through UNESCO?
Mr. Raison: The British Council has expressed no formal views on this issue. Our dissatisfaction covers a number of grounds, but three of the most important are the failure to achieve the progress that we believe to be essential on the so-called major programme 13, the failure to achieve an effective switch of resources from the more useless activities to the more useful, and the fact that no one can possibly say that the deep-seated management problems which afflict the organisation have been resolved.
Viscount Cranborne: Since when have the views of academics invariably been synonymous with common sense? This decision is surely a victory for common sense. As one of the contentious issues has been UNESCO's push for a new world information order, will my right hon. Friend consider diverting some of the funds that would otherwise have gone to UNESCO to the coffers of the BBC's overseas service?
Mr. Raison: The views of academics are as varied on this issue as are the views of many others. It is our intention that the money saved by withdrawing from UNESCO should pass through the aid programme to fulfil functions in the realm of education, science and culture that can properly be funded by that programme. I cannot give my hon. Friend an assurance that the money will go to the BBC's overseas service.
Mr. Eric Deakins: Which countries in Europe and in the Commonwealth support Britain in the disgraceful decision that has been announced this afternoon?
Mr. Raison: Singapore has announced that it is leaving as well.
Mr. Robert Jackson: I believe that the Government have made a regrettable decision which can be blamed in part on the past neglect of UNESCO by successive Governments. Does my right hon. Friend think that this decision will make it easier or more difficult for the reform party in UNESCO to bring about the dismissal of Mr. M'Bow when his time comes up in a couple of years?
Mr. Raison: It is impossible to make a firm judgment on what the impact will be in that direction.
Mr. David Alton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is ironic that a

453
Government who introduced full-cost fees for overseas students and who have been cutting students' grants should use the UNESCO peg on which to hang their policies? Does he further accept also that the Council for Education in the Commonwealth has registered its formal opposition to the decision? Is this not another example of Britain turning in on itself and a sign of national creeping xenophobia? Is it not a bad day when an organisation such as the Heritage Foundation can have so much influence on the House and on the American Government, too?
Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman should try to forget the influence of the Heritage Foundation, which has been grossly exaggerated in this matter. The announcement that I have made this afternoon offers the clear prospect of additional help to Commonwealth students, especially from poor countries, who come to Britain to receive the advantages of our extremely good education system.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Opposition Members genuinely want to improve educational, scientific and cultural assistance to the Third world, they should be congratulating him on his brave decision today? The Third world will receive far better value for money in those areas by our direct assistance than our funding of Mr. M'Bow and his bloated bureaucracy in UNESCO.
Mr. Raison: I believe that my hon. Friend makes a good point. Many of UNESCO's activities are not cost effective, whereas the scholarships and technical co-operation that we provide are highly cost effective and well regarded. I am sure that they will be used to good effect.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How many students from overseas will be able to come to Britain in 1986 as a result of this decision? How far will it go to restoring the number of overseas students that the Government have cut since 1979? What consideration has been given to the British educational book trade? The moneys that are spent on education in other countries may go to English-speaking countries other than the United Kingdom.
Mr. Raison: I cannot say exactly how many students will come to Britain through the new programmes or measures that we are taking. I shall keep the House informed.
It is not possible to give a definite answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about books. It is not possible to say that the books that are produced by British publishers and sold to UNESCO will cease to be sold to the organisation in future. That remains to be seen.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am absolutely delighted that more Commonwealth students from foreign countries will be given help to come here? It is crucial to our future relations with the Commonwealth both industrially and culturally. Will he, as soon as possible, give us a little additional information as to how those students will be selected?
Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I assure her and the House that I will try as soon as possible to give details of the ways in which we will implement our policy.
Mr. Ken Eastham: There will be very deep resentment by many of the religious bodies
454
throughout the country at the announcement that has been made today by the Minister. Is it not a fact that the very first UNESCO meeting took place in this city at the behest of our Government, and that it costs us a very small amount of money, possibly about £5 million a year, to be a member? Can we justify and pretend to ourselves that we are going to kid the Third world that the decision made today will really help the needs of those people?
Mr. Raison: I hope and believe—perhaps hope rather than believe—that the religious bodies will think very carefully about whether we can use this money more effectively for the kind of purposes that they support through the British aid programme rather than through UNESCO with all its inefficiencies.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: First, I assure my right hon. Friend that I support this sad but inevitable decision of the Government.
Are there not two lessons to be learnt? First, any international organisation, however noble its aspirations, can very easily be wrecked on the reefs of Left-wing extremism. Secondly, our constituents, although they may have the most profound sympathy for the Third world, resent it very much when institutions of this kind, largely supported by Western money, are employed by their representatives to launch a continuous, damaging and unscrupulous attack on the values of the West which keeps the whole show on the road.
Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that one of the problems has been the way in which through the years UNESCO has been used to launch the kind of attacks that my hon. Friend has described. Those attacks come not only, as it were, formally at the public meetings and conferences of UNESCO, but very often through the documentation that is prepared under the auspices of UNESCO.
As to his comment about Left-wing extremism wrecking organisations, the Opposition have very good reason to know that that applies not only to international bodies, but to domestic bodies.
Mr. David Winnick: Since it is known that the Minister has argued privately against the decision, does he not feel humiliated by having to tell us of this shameful decision, which clearly has been taken—as everybody knows—at the behest of the United States? Does he not realise that if this is a victory, it is a victory for all the bigots, all those who are against the United Nations and its associated bodies, and that we, as a country, should indeed be hurt and shamed by what he has announced today?
Mr. Raison: I defy the hon. Gentleman to produce any evidence whatsoever that this decision is in response to pressure from the United States.
Mr. Robert Key: In his capacity as chairman of the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO, will my right hon. Friend accept that I and most of the other members of the United Kingdom National Commission will be very sorry at this decision, but that we will stay in the arena of debate and will seek to work for the restoration of Britain to full status in UNESCO?
Mr. Raison: I recognise that my hon. Friend is a member of the National Commission. I did, of course, attend the long discussion that took place in the National Commission the other day, and I listened carefully to what

455
it had to say. The part that its members may play in future discussions about these matters in their own private lives is, of course, essentially for them.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree that, whatever the views of any individual or Government, there is one thing in common—that reforms in UNESCO are urgently necessary? In view of that fact, do not Her Majesty's Government's actions constitute an abdication of international responsibility which will be seen as such by people inside the Commonwealth and by nations and foreign offices throughout the world? In that respect, will not Britain's influence be diminished? Is he aware that the Prime Minister said earlier today that this decision was in Britain's interests? Will he tell us what interests will be gained by this decision?
Mr. Raison: We have worked throughout for reform in UNESCO. I think that that is recognised on all sides. However, the fact of the matter is that a year ago we gave notice of our intention to depart unless we could honestly see that a sufficient degree of reform had been achieved by the end of the year. It is our judgment that that degree of reform has not been achieved, and that is why we are fulfilling the notice that we gave a year ago.
Mr. Colin Moynihan: I support this afternoon's statement, but will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in no circumstances will the additional resources going to the British Council be seen as a substitute in the future for giving money to the British Council per se?
Mr. Raison: I am confident that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend say how much is being saved by this action? Will he confirm that all that money will be spent on Third world countries? Can he also tell the House what action he will be taking to strengthen the British Council?
Mr. Raison: Our estimate of what our subscription would have been next year is £6.4 million. As I have said, that money will be devoted to programmes connected with the purposes of the aid programme.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have retained the admiration which is felt for him on both sides of the House by the way in which he has handled the very painful decision he has had to announce today? Is he further aware that it is never a good idea to walk out, as the Social Democrats have discovered, because one consigns oneself to oblivion and weakens the strength of the reformers who are left? Does he recall the French saying that those who are not there are always wrong?
Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind personal words, but I remind him that in fact there have been instances of reform in the past which have followed from the departure of a country. I am thinking of the ILO.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that only about 30 per cent. of UNESCO's staff are out in the field and that the other 70 per cent., or about 2,500 people, are in the headquarters in Paris where
456
the director-general, Mr. M'Bow, has surrounded himself with little Yes-men who share his prejudices and whom he has jumped up over the heads of experienced senior staff whose morale has declined catastrophically? Has not the rot gone too far so that the only answer now is major surgery?
Mr. Raison: In fact, the figure for those who work in Paris is higher than that given by my hon. Friend. I believe that 75 per cent. of the staff are working in Paris. There is absolutely no doubt that many things are wrong with the management of the organisation. We have sought to reform them. Some progress has been made, but not enough, and that is why we are leaving.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to claims that UNESCO has reformed itself, Radio Prague and other bastions of liberty have in recent weeks openly boasted that UNESCO has remained true to its "Socialist principles"? In particular, the new world information order, which surely is as abhorrent to Western ideals of democracy as UNESCO spending 70 per cent. of its budget in Paris, is abhorrent to our belief that aid should be directed at peoples of the Third world, not at the bureaucrats in the capital cities of the world.
Mr. Raison: I am not aware of the point that my hon. Friend has made about Radio Prague, but it is certainly very telling.
Mr. Keith Best: Will my right hon. Friend say what consideration, if any, was given by the Cabinet to the expression of opinion by the House, and what the result was of that consideration? How will this country influence developments in UNESCO after 31 December this year? Why is it that no other European country has announced its intention to withdraw from UNESCO? Finally, will he set out the precise requirements precedent to this country rejoining UNESCO, so that at least UNESCO and the rest of the world will know what has to be fulfilled and so that we can once more participate fully in international affairs?
Mr. Raison: The Government in their consideration of this matter thought carefully about what was said in the debate in the House the other day. I have said that other European countries are not going down the path that we are taking, but this is a matter on which each country has to make its own decision, and we have come to the one which we believe to be right.
With regard to stating this afternoon the conditions precedent which we would have to seek if we were to contemplate rejoining the organisation, I think that it would not be appropriate at this stage to set them out.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: As a non-academic, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this decision and ask him to note that the heart-on-sleeve doctrine of Labour Members is that it is better to spend money on international bureaucracies—provided that they are of the Left—than on human beings in need. Would it not be reasonable, if we were ever to rejoin this wretched organisation, to require it to live in the Third world, not in the middle of Paris?
Mr. Raison: My hon. and learned Friend makes a forceful point. One of the problems with UNESCO is that

457
it is over-concentrated in Paris. That has been pointed out for some time, and not enough has been done to reverse it.

BILLS PRESENTED
  BUILDING SOCIETIES
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Ian Stewart, Mr. John Patten and Mr. Michael Howard, presented a Bill to make fresh provision with respect to building societies and further provision with respect to conveyancing services: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 December and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  PUBLIC ORDER
  Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Giles Shaw, presented a Bill to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order, to create new offences relating to public order, to control public processions and assemblies, to control the stirring up of racial hatred, to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events, to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 December and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put the Questions on the three motions together.
  Ordered,
  That the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  The the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neubert.]
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises from what you said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). Will you give further consideration to the problems arising from private Bills, particularly with regard to the fact that for most of the last century and early this century there was no alternative procedure for
  458
  someone to promote a measure such as the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill other than by means of a private Bill in this House? Since 1949, there have been planning procedures and the opportunity to hold a planning inquiry.
  It is most unfortunate that hon. Members are now required to sit for long periods in private Bill Committees listening to what is, in effect, a planning inquiry. It causes considerable difficulties for hon. Members and is not satisfactory to the general public, in that hon. Members cannot be expected to give the same detailed attention to the procedure as is given by a planning inquiry inspector sitting with assessors.
  In the past, it was the usual custom for such Committees to meet at the convenience of hon. Members, but the practice which seems to have developed of late is that the Committee meets at the convenience of the promoters of the Bill and the objectors to the Bill. I understand that in the case of the Felixstowe Docks and Railway Bill the promoters and objectors were consulted as to the days on which it would be convenient for them to sit. I understand also that the managing director of the Felixstowe dock insisted that the Committee should meet this week so that he could go to Japan either today or tomorrow.
  If hon. Members are to be reported to the House for non-attendance at such Committee sittings, they should be consulted as to the sitting days. The four hon. Members asked to serve on the Bill should have been consulted, especially as two of them had questions on the Order Paper. They should not have been reported for not attending the Committee when they were not consulted about sitting days or times and had no opportunity to make representations on the matter.
  I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give careful consideration to the point, because I think you indicated that there is no sanction on hon. Members if they do not attend a Committee other than to be reported to the House. I understand that if hon. Members wished to do so they could absent themselves from the Committee, thus destroying the quorum and making the proceedings unworkable. I hope that you will look carefully at all these matters, and either refer them to the Procedure Committee or perhaps make a statement to the House.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may well be correct in what he says, but it is a matter for the Procedure Committee. As he well knows, I am bound by the Standing Orders and I have to enforce them. Private Bill Committees sit in a semi-judicial capacity. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have the Standing Order changed, he should take the matter to the Procedure Committee.
  The Standing Order lays down that hon. Members who are absent from a private Bill Committee are reported to the House. That is the only penalty. The hon. Gentleman might like to take up the other matter elsewhere.

Orders of the Day

  Education (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I reported to you that the terms of the Bill are so far removed from the Act which it seeks to amend that it cannot in practice or in equity be called an amending Bill. Perhaps you would consider that point. The Bill bears no resemblance to the concept of education support grants which were introduced so that curriculum training could be brought in. The original Act is being distorted to tackle the problem of lunchtime supervision.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not have responsibility for the drafting of Bills. This is a Government Bill, and the purposes of it are set out in the Bill. It is a matter for debate in the Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the Bill, he has his remedy.
  5.26 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Two years ago I introduced to the House a Bill to empower the holder of my office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to pay specific grants, known as education support grants, to local education authorities. That Bill became the Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984, and gave my right hon. Friend and me power to promote expenditure for or in connection with educational purposes which it appeared to me or to my right hon. Friend that local education authorities should be encouraged to incur in the interests of education in England and Wales.
  The regulations made with the approval of this House—the Education Support Grants Regulations 1984 and their amendments—prescribe a variety of purposes for which education support grant may be paid. All local education authorities have responded positively to invitations to put forward proposals for approval for grant support. Their bids have greatly exceeded the resources available. In the 1985–86 financial year, about £30 million of expenditure has been approved for support in England and £2 million in Wales. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales sitting by my side. We expect later this month to announce approvals for a programme of £40 million in England and £2.6 million in Wales for 1986–87.
  The 1984 Act included, in section 2(1), a provision that the total of expenditure approved for education support grant in any one year should not exceed one half of 1 per cent. of the amount determined by the holder of my office as representing, in his opinion, the appropriate amount of expenditure for local education authorities to incur in the year in question for educational purposes. We thought it right at that time to impose such a limit.
  Some local authorities were anxious about the amount of expenditure which the Government might expect to redeploy to the specific purposes prescribed for education support grant. We wished to reassure them that the amount would be small, and deliberately arranged that the limit could be increased only through primary legislation.
  460
  Clause 1 raises the limit in section 2(1) of the 1984 Act to 1 per cent. This will allow an additional £52 million of expenditure to be approved next year in England and £3 million in Wales. We have a specific purpose in seeking that increase, namely, securing the supervision of pupils in schools at midday.
  As I informed the House on 8 November, the Government intend to make available additional resources to assist local education authorities to achieve their longstanding aim of securing reliable and adequate supervision of pupils at midday in the interests of the orderly and efficient conduct of schools. In 1985–86 there is sufficient headroom within the existing limit to pay grant on this new activity. However, for later years we need the headroom which will be created by the amendment in clause 1.
  Clause 2 excludes remuneration paid to teachers exclusively for midday supervision from the remuneration which is the subject of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. The principal effect of the clause is to make it quite clear that remuneration for midday supervision is not to be subject to review by the Burnham committee or determination by the holder of my office.
  The increase in the limit on expenditure for education support grant purposes from 0.5 per cent. to 1 per cent. of the planned total will permit my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and me to use the additional headroom for any purpose prescribed in regulations. However, we recognise the continuing concern of many in the House and in local government about the balance between the power of Ministers to pay specific grant for purposes of national importance and the discretion of local authorities to meet local needs as they believe best.
  My right hon. Friend and I intend, pending the outcome of the review of local government finance, to keep expenditure approved for education support grant in respect of activities other than midday supervision within the original limit of one half of 1 per cent. We intend to increase relevant expenditure for local authorities by £40 million next year in England and Wales to provide for midday supervision. This is "new" money, over and above our existing plans for education for that year. The Government will also add £28 million to aggregate Exchequer grant for 1986–87 to cover the 70 per cent. of that expenditure which they propose to reimburse through education support grants. I say "aggregate Exchequer grant" advisedly: I fear that the memorandum to the Bill makes a technical error in referring to this sum as added
  "to the aggregate amount of Rate Support Grants."
  Thus 70 per cent. of the cost of new arrangements will be met by the taxpayer and 30 per cent. by the ratepayer. We will also increase relevant expenditure by £10 million and aggregate Exchequer grant by £7 million in 1985–86 to cover the cost of new arrangements for midday supervision where these can be introduced within this financial year.
  The additional money will come from the £1,250 million envelope which the Government have said they are willing to make available if a satisfactory agreement can be reached on teachers' duties and on a new salary structure. I made it clear in August when I announced the Government's conditional offer of more resources for a new salary structure that part of those resources might be used to pay for midday supervision.
  Teachers have long clamoured to have midday supervision removed from their duties. This duty was never popular with teachers. In 1967, a working party was set up to consider, and make recommendations on, the

  461
  position of teachers in relation to all aspects of the school meals service. Its recommendations for change were accepted by the then Secretary of State and by the local authority associations and teachers' unions, which were represented on the working party.
  The 1945 regulations were amended in 1968 to remove the provision which authorised LEAs to require teachers to supervise pupils taking school meals. Since 1968 teachers have undertaken midday supervision in schools, but have insisted that they did so voluntarily and were free at any time to withdraw their services. That withdrawal of goodwill, as they called it, has come to be used as a weapon of disruption available at almost no cost to the teachers, but which can cause disruption to education in schools. It has been the source of sporadic difficulties for many years, but the current dispute over teachers' pay has led to escalation to the point where few secondary schools are unaffected. The work of schools has been seriously disturbed.
  Mr. Jack Dormand: I would not normally intervene, but this is an important point. The Secretary of State has explained the circumstances that arose in 1968. He has made it clear that, in law, teachers have no necessity—the right hon. Gentleman called it duty—to undertake supervision. He cannot say that it is a withdrawal of goodwill, because they are not required to undertake that supervision. The hon. Gentleman should say that the teachers have shown goodwill since 1968 by undertaking to carry out these duties.
  Sir Keith Joseph: The regulations were amended by the then Government. However, it is not for the hon. Gentleman or for the holder of my office to pronounce on what a court would find was implied by the contract between a local education authority and a teacher. That matter is for a court to decide if an employer wishes to test the case. I simply state that the regulations were amended in 1968.
  Our principal and overriding aim in offering additional resources through education support grant is to ensure that pupils are effectively supervised at midday. We expect that these resources will be used to employ supervisors charged with that responsibility, under the overall authority of the head teacher or his deputy. These supervisors will be employed under separate contracts relating exclusively to midday supervision, under which no payment will be made if the contract is not honoured. These arrangements will not rely on the voluntary participation of teachers.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: A teacher in my constituency came to me and made the point that teachers are not only responsible for teaching in class, but have other responsibilities as well. In his view, it is important that teachers are there during the lunch period, because that is part of the school, and their presence forms part of the impact that teachers can make on pupils. Why does my right hon. Friend not require teachers to be there at lunchtime? Many teachers have relatively short days and very long holidays. Why can they not take responsibility for lunchtime supervision as well?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I respect the view of my hon. Friend's constituent. It will be for teachers to choose to do so if the local education authority wishes to offer them the opportunity to become paid supervisors of the midday period.
  462
  We do not intend to prescribe the details of new arrangements beyond what I have said. Individual authorities are best placed to determine matters such as staffing numbers and rates of pay in the light of their local needs and circumstances. The local education authorities have considered these matters, and a few of them have introduced, or are about to introduce, arrangements along the lines that we envisage. Moreover, authorities already employ many assistants to share in the task of midday supervision.
  New arrangements will bring clarity to a long-confused situation for teachers. It will be for LEAs to decide whether teachers should be given the opportunity to participate, and up to teachers to decide whether to accept that opportunity by entering into a separate contract for midday supervision in addition to a normal teaching contract. At all events, those teachers who feel that they need a break to come fresh to their classes in the afternoon will not be pressed to participate in supervision. Teaching is often stressful, and I am sure that many teachers will be pleased to be relieved of that burden.
  In conclusion, I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned with education in our schools—teachers and parents, but most especially pupils—to secure more effective arrangements for supervision at midday. The Bill will enable education support grants to be used to that end, and I commend it to the House.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: We oppose the Bill for three reasons. As I made clear on Second Reading of the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill 1984, we are not against the principle of specific grants, but we are against the way in which the education support grants are being funded. We are opposed to the Secretary of State removing money that the local authorities previously spent as they thought fit in the light of local circumstances and to the Secretary of State using that money for the purposes that he thinks fit.
  The Secretary of State said that for 1986–87 the Government will be adding £28 million to the rate support grant to support the payment of supervision of pupils at midday. However, the right hon. Gentleman must accept that the LEAs will have to provide £12 million out of their resources. To receive a 70 per cent. grant, they must provide 30 per cent. from their money. In addition, because the Bill increases the amount of educational support from 0.5 per cent. of the total education grant to 1 per cent., the local education authorities will lose control over a further £12 million of what would otherwise have been their money.
  As the Secretary of State reminded us, he said on 8 November in answer to a written question that he did not intend to use the extra 0.5 per cent. for anything other than midday supervision, but that was pending the outcome of the present review of local government finance. There is no guarantee that the payment for midday supervision will continue to be covered, for the most part, by additional rate support money. Knowing the Government, it is highly likely that it will have to come from the resources of local education authorities.
  As the Secretary of State knows, local education authorities are financially hard pressed. The right hon. Gentleman said in a press release that the autumn statement will allow local authorities an extra 5 per cent. in cash over the sum allocated to the service in 1985–86.

  463
  That is one way of putting it, but it is misleading. We should consider what LEAs are spending in 1985–86. The Government are planning to reduce expenditure from the £11,000 million which the LEAs are spending in the current year to £10,935 million. They are planning a cash cut of £65 million which, allowing for inflation, is a real cut of 4.5 per cent.
  The Secretary of State should provide local education authorities with additional resources to do something about the alarming deficiencies in educational provision, the shortages of books and equipment, the mismatch of teaching skills, and the inadequate repair and maintenance of so many schools, about which the Government's advisers—Her Majesty's inspectors—have so frequently warned. In previous years, when I made similar criticisms, the Secretary of State has made much play with the so-called unallocated margin available to LEAs to spend on education. But there is no unallocated margin for 1986–87; at least, one has not been announced. The truth—it is fully recognised by parents—is that the Secretary of State is doing little or nothing to tackle the growing crisis of provision in our classrooms. Against that background, and the tightening of educational resources, we condemn the Government's failure to provide new money to cover all education support grants.
  The second main reason for our opposition to the Bill is its timing. Of course, there is a strong case for a fully staffed ancillary service for lunchtime supervision. The Secretary of State was right to say that teachers' unions have called for this in the past. We recognise that many head teachers have been under great pressure during the teachers' dispute, because in many schools they must cope almost singlehandedly with supervising duties. We also recognise that some LEAs are anxious to introduce schemes to pay for separate midday supervisors under separate contracts. But the fact that the Secretary of State is rushing through a Bill during the dispute, and without consulting teachers, is bound to be considered provocative. Teachers are also likely to resent the fact that the £40 million approved expenditure will come from the new money which the Secretary of State said was available, under certain conditions, for teachers' pay.
  Our third reason for opposing the Bill is that we reject the Government's priorities. There is a glaring contrast between the Secretary of State's eagerness to rush through Parliament the Bill to pay for lunchtime supervision and his complete inactivity in solving the teachers' dispute. Since the right hon. Gentleman's initiative in early August, when he revealed at last the sum of money—it was inadequate—behind his structure package, he has confined himself to wringing his hands.
  The Government have recently made strenuous efforts to improve their presentation. In October, we had the Prime Minister's extraordinary one-day conference at Downing street, to which she invited, among others, the controversial Ray Honeyford and those educational reactionaries, Baroness Cox and Dr. John Marks. In November, there was a widely leaked meeting of senior Ministers, including Lord Whitelaw and the chairman of the Tory party, to discuss tactics. According to newspaper reports, they decided to sit it out, hoping that parents would turn against the teachers and forget about the Government's inactivity.
  464
  Thirdly, there was the appointment of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) as Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. I congratulate him on that appointment. However, I must say that his duties are somewhat ill-defined. It seems to many observers that the hon. Gentleman has been appointed as a glorified public relations consultant to the Secretary of State. He has been hired to put a more attractive gloss on the Government's education policies, especially in relation to the teachers' dispute.
  We all know that the Secretary of State could do with a facelift, but I must tell the Minister and the Secretary of State that no amount of fancy presentation can make up for lack of policy and action. The teachers' dispute has lasted for more than 10 months—
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Thanks to the National Union of Teachers.
  Mr. Radice: —and parents and teachers alike are crying out for the Government to take action that will result in a just solution. I very much hope that the meeting of the teachers—
  Mr. Marlow: Is this in order?
  Mr. Radice: I am in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am discussing the reasons why we shall oppose the Bill, and I am explaining—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The Chair will decide when an hon. Member is out of order. The hon. Gentleman should not take note of comments made from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Radice: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your extremely wise advice. I shall remember that in future.
  I very much hope that the meeting of the teachers' panel today will lead to the reopening of negotiations with employers—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Tell the teachers that.
  Mr. Radice: I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been following the dispute. I suspect that she has not.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady has been following this dispute with the greatest possible care because she is extremely interested in education, but she regrets very much that the monopoly power of the NUT has prevented the other unions from getting a word in edgeways and discussing the package put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Lady is not entirely up to date with events. The NUT has lost its overall majority on the teachers' panel, and I understand that at today's meeting there was a decision to reopen negotiations—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Precisely because of that.
  Mr. Radice: —not on the structure package, but on the previous informal offer by the employers. I must tell the hon. Lady and the House that, even if there is a settlement before Christmas, as I hope, no one can seriously believe that such an agreement can be more than an interim solution. The main teachers' unions have already drawn up plans—or are in the process of doing so—for a new claim for next year which the LEAs will be unable to satisfy from their resources.
  The dispute could continue to disrupt our schools during next year. It is because I view that prospect with

  465
  such dismay—I hope that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) does, too—that I make no apology for urging the Government yet again to set up an inquiry into teachers' pay. The Government and the Secretary of State have continually ducked or avoided my requests for such an inquiry. They may be doing that because they wish to keep the option open. If that is the case, why not set up the inquiry now instead of waiting until our education system crumbles? Perhaps the Secretary of State finds it embarrassing to appear to give way to an Opposition demand. I promise that if he sets up an inquiry I shall stop asking for it.
  The Bill is not only ill-timed; it does nothing to tackle the desperate shortage of money and crisis of provision in our schools. Above all, it will do nothing to bring an end to the teachers' dispute, which should be the Secretary of State's top priority. For those reasons, we shall oppose the Bill.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I recognise that the Bill is undoubtedly overshadowed by the teachers' dispute, but the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) seemed to have to wallow considerably in that dispute in order to make any kind of reason for the Opposition's intention to vote against the Bill. When one examines the Bill, it is rather difficult to justify that.
  The Bill touches upon the dispute; there can be no argument about that. The fact that the problem of lunchtime supervision is being addressed in this way says a lot about the ineffectiveness of the usual machinery for resolving what might be thought to be a fairly routine matter. It also seems to say even more about the nature of the teachers' contract that such an ingredient should be missing from it. The Bill is obviously tied up with the teachers' dispute to some extent, but it reinforces my view that the Government are right to insist that pay and conditions of service must be brought together. Simply because that combination has not yet been achieved does not mean that there is something so unique about the teaching profession that it is an unattainable combination.
  Any professional person used to negotiation can find a way of bringing those matters together in a sensible manner. Therefore, if there is continuing reluctance on the teachers' part to admit of that possibility, it may have something to do with the fact that they recognise that their rule book may be being bought out.
  There may be a lesson for teachers in the Bill. I should have thought that today demonstrated to them that the Government are prepared to buy and are prepared to put good money on the table—money which is new to teachers. Forget whether it is new money in the sense of the total education budget; this is new money that is being offered to teachers. At the same time, the Government are prepared not only to tackle that matter but, in so doing, to deal with an issue which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, has been a bone of contention with the teaching profession for a long time.
  Teachers should note that and recognise for a change that there is some goodwill on the part of the Government. They seem so utterly disbelieving of the fact that the Government are capable of any genuine or generous act towards them and that is extremely worrying. Many in the profession will recognise that much of the work to which my right hon. Friend has set his hand is educationally valuable. But when it comes to teachers' remuneration and
  466
  conditions of service, they seem unable to see any good whatever in what the Government say. It is about time that they began to recognise that there is some goodwill and they should be negotiating in that spirit.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that pay and conditions of service are vital and much under discussion and that the problem of pay brings us to the centre of the argument? Should not there now be an inquiry into pay provided that it is linked with conditions of service? If the two can come together, will he join me in urging our right hon. Friend towards such an inquiry?
  Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall answer that in a slightly different way from the manner in which he has raised it.
  I am disturbed that teachers are not even prepared to negotiate despite the willingness on the part of the Government to put money on the table, and the Bill represents a part of the money which the Government are prepared to put on the table.
  I do not speak with the responsibility which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have to carry, so I can advert to other ways in which the dispute may go. I would be inclined to say that if teachers would for one moment suspend their disbelief and look at the possibilities of what is being offered, it might well be that through negotiations about new money directed towards certain purposes an outcome could be reached which might be more generous in 1985 terms than they previously believed.
  I would not say right from the start of negotiations that there could be any concessions on the main elements which the Government are seeking. There should not be. It would not be realistic for extra money to be put up front from 1985 simply in order to get that dispute out of the way. We would not have advanced the cause of the teachers' profession in any way by such an exercise.
  We must get matters right in the long term. If teachers went into negotiations with the Government, they might, as the price of the final settlement, find a package which was agreeable to them now as well as in the medium and long term. Therefore, I can only say to them that they should not exclude any possible results of a negotiation when there is such evidence of the Government's willingness to negotiate with a sizeable sum of money available for all to see.
  If there is a lesson for the teachers in the Bill, the Government might also derive a lesson from what they themselves are doing. Here we have an instrument of primary legislation being used to tackle an aspect of a complex dispute. My right hon. Friend might begin to see that there might be merits in that method of proceeding in connection with other aspects of the dispute. It might be that, if appraisal were to be pursued by legislation, the costs associated with a system of appraisal might also be tackled by primary legislation.
  Other aspects in the dispute could be tackled by primary legislation, if that is the only way that the Government can impact upon what is proving to be a most intractable problem. That may be a lesson for the Government or for the teachers.
  Legislation might be time-consuming, but it can do what the Government want it to do with the approval of the House. Teachers might conclude that it was better for

  467
  everyone's sake, not least their own, if they got on with the negotiations and there would then be less need for us to consider recourse to legislation.
  As I have said, it is hard to see what, in terms of the sheer mechanics of the Bill, the Opposition can be arguing about. There is a problem and it is a problem of lunchtime supervision, and there is a means through education support grants to deal with that problem. I can see nothing wrong in using the ESG system in that way. We are still talking of a maximum ceiling of 1 per cent. of educational expenditure.
  The question arises whether the Government are right to tackle the problem separate from a dispute of which it forms part. I can say only that if the Opposition seek to divide the House it must be an illustration that they are fully behind the teachers in the dispute. If they were just concerned with dealing with this problem, they could not possibly object to the measure. Quite apart from the urgent need to overcome the problems flowing from unsupervised lunch periods, the measure is to be welcomed if its effect is to remove one of the obstacles on the road towards a settlement of the pay dispute. If only the teachers recognised that that is the Government's approach—an attempt to remove the obstacles—perhaps they would join hands with the negotiators and the Government to ensure that the other obstacles were removed as well.
  6 pm
  Mr. Clement Freud: Unlike the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), I can see very good reasons for opposing the Bill. I believe that it is an abuse of education support grant funding. The Bill is depressingly irrelevant and illogical, and its title is a deception in that the measure bears no resemblance to the concept of education support grants.
  The Select Committee report on which the notion of such support grants is supposed to be based stated that there were two possible justifications for the amount of centralisation involved. I remind the Secretary of State that the Select Committee never envisaged that the money would be found by withdrawing funds from the local education authorities but thought that this would be new money to give the Secretary of State the power that he needed to invoke innovation.
  The Committee's first suggestion was legitimate pump priming, which it described as:
  "Such experimental or innovative schemes which it"—
  that is, the Department of Education and Science—
  "considers of potential national importance".
  I would argue that lunchtime supervision is not covered by that.
  The second justification was the removal of some elements of educational expenditure from the block grant, justifiable where short-term exigencies have resulted in what the Committee described as
  "A dangerously inequitable distribution of activity in an area which has important medium and long term implications".
  I remember well that the Committee had in mind the disparity in the provision of teacher training from one area to another; it was certainly not lunchtime supervision.
  The DES consultative document issued in March 1983 which launched the Government's proposals for these grants stated that the powers involved were:
  "To assist LEAs to innovate and respond swiftly to new demands on the education service, to promote qualitative
  468
  changes and improvements in standards of provision in areas of particular importance and to encourage them to redeploy their expenditure".
  That does not include lunchtime supervision.
  During the Second Reading of the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill the Secretary of State summed up the purposes of the Bill as
  "assisting in the financing of pilot projects within a limited number of authorities, the results of which could be of potential benefit to all authorities".—[Official Report, 14 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 630.]
  The clear implication was—this is borne out by the kind of projects since funded and about which so many of us have asked questions that have been properly answered—that ESGs were to fund curriculum developments. I seriously question whether lunchtime supervision can be discussed in the same terms.
  It seems to me that the problem of the midday break has, at least as the Minister understands it, about as much to do with curriculum developments as with parking parents' cars in the school car park. Both functions are probably necessary, but I do not believe that they qualify under ESG.
  The situation is made worse by increasing the proportion of LEA money reclaimed for use at the Secretary of State's own discretion, especially as the actual proportion of the budget—excluding teachers' pay—over which the LEA has control is only about 30 per cent. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, most of that money is already committed.
  The Secretary of State is thus asking for control over a larger piece of the education cake to be used for an entirely different purpose than was intended by the Act that he is seeking to amend. As well as having very little to do with curriculum development, this Bill has nothing to do with what actually goes on in schools at lunchtime. It deals with supervision in isolation from the other activities that take pe, or do not take place, when there is no dispute. We are at risk in finding schools in which the teachers will be on strike when it comes to teaching, but will be available and working when it comes to lunchtime supervision.
  For the past few years, the Government's expenditure plans have picked out school meals as the area of the largest target saving. Those plans have been proved to be unrealistic, largely as a result of the increase in poverty among families with school age children. The school meals service is being systematically undermined.
  The Black report was unequivocal about the importance of school meals to the poorest children, as was the NACNE report about the role of diet in health. There are also questions about food allergies and children's behaviour. For example, there seems to be a relationship between some additives and hyperactivity, and those additives are found in precisely the foods that children will choose if unguided. However, no element in lunchtime supervision will be educative.
  Now we have the Fowler report that threatens the entitlement of children of poorly paid families to a full school meal by giving the school meal element of family credit to the working parents. We could redeem the irrelevance of this Bill by doing something about health education, and that would count as curriculum development. However, the Bill does not make clear the sort of supervision that the Government want to see.
  The DES working party to which reference has already been made was clear that variety would be essential. It

  469
  says that there were certainly schools where provision would have to be more generous than the norm, for instance,
  "because of special problems arising from the school buildings or school organisation, or in a secondary school where there is an unusually low proportion of older children".
  What sort of ratios are the Government thinking about, and what role do they envisage for head teachers? What does the Secretary of State feel about the need for national agreement such as the head teachers have called for? In choosing the mechanism of ESG, presumably he has rejected this. It would be interesting to know.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage supervision by teachers or non-teachers? If predominantly the latter, is he satisfied that lunchtimes can legitimately be taken out of the context of the school day as a whole and that non-teachers will be able to command the authority of children as do the teachers? The head teachers do not believe that that will be so.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Freud: I shall not give way, because I am trying to finish within my allotted time.
  If this Bill is the first recognition that pay and conditions must go together, or if at the very least it is intended as a slightly clearer definition of teachers' duties—as the alliance has been arguing since the start of the dispute—why not tackle that issue rather than play around by amending an Act and changing its substance in a way that is hard to understand? This measure does not tackle the issue of low pay among teachers. Will the payment of lunchtime duties be used as an excuse to keep basic rates of pay down, along the lines of, "If you want more money you have only to supervise school lunches"? If that is so, we are falling into the trap of merit money to which the alliance is so opposed.
  This is the Secretary of State taking direct action because LEAs have not managed an agreement on his terms and by his deadline, when in fact his interventions are the main cause of that failure.
  The biggest criticism of the Bill is that it does not make sense. The Secretary of State is in an untenable position. On the one hand, he tells us that he will pay for lunchtime supervision for this financial year from the money that is still spare from existing ESG, but that prompts one to ask what he would have done had this not occurred. On the other hand, he is telling us that for the next financial year lunchtime supervision will be paid out of the £1.25 billion that he has made available.
  To start with, it looks as if those two facts are explained by the different years to which the two sums apply, but that is not the case. The Secretary of State is indulging in double counting, because he is also increasing the ESG for the next financial year—the same year that is to be paid for from the extra money. Lunchtime money is either new and comes out of the £1.25 billion, or it is not and comes from LEA money via the ESG precept. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is actually taking LEA money to pay for lunchtimes but he is telling us—and I refer to his written answer of 8 November—that payment for lunchtimes is coming from his new money.
  We have an amending Bill that destroys the concept of the original Act. It is irrelevant to the main issue of low pay in the education service. It has been drawn up without consulting the teachers, and the heads have said that the
  470
  Government have seriously underestimated the sums needed, and it does not make any sense. For these reasons, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will oppose the Bill.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I am disappointed but not surprised that both Opposition speakers could not find a single word of welcome for a measure that teachers have wanted for years. I welcome the Bill and believe that it takes from teachers a burden which they have grumbled about for years. Dinner duties have been as unwanted as they have been unpaid. For the first time, teachers will be able to have a lunch break away from school and pupils, and, like many other employees, they will be able to move away from their place of work and have a reasonable break. Those who wish to supervise—and I hope many will choose to do so—will henceforth be remunerated.
  I strike a gentle note of caution, however. At a meeting of the National Association of Head Teachers yesterday concern was expressed about the mechanics of the payments that will be made to teachers for supervising dinner duties. It would seem that this requires some clarification. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will mention that in his summing-up. It is important that we ensure considerable teacher participation in these duties.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has obtained £10 million for midday supervision for the balance of the year and £40 million for next, and his action should be applauded. I am disappointed that Opposition Members could find no word of commendation for an action that has been wanted for a long time. The funding comes from the £1.25 billion that is on offer to teachers. If nothing else, this measure proves the tangible existence of that money, a point that appears to be doubted by some members of the profession.
  Parents will welcome the Bill. Children will not be sent home at midday because of inadequate or insufficient supervision and that will remove a major source of worry from parents, particularly now that winter is with us. Parents will be assured that children will not be locked out of schools during inclement weather. That has to be a substantial benefit. What is more, children will not be getting into mischief at lunchtimes. A further aspect that will commend itself to many hon. Members is that working mothers will not have to take time off from work and lose earnings to ensure that they will be available to look after their children should they be sent home from school.
  When enacted, the Bill will enable local authorities to recruit staff, and that includes teachers. If local authorities do not and schools close, parents will know where the responsibility for that action lies. They will know exactly who to blame should that happen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ensured an important safeguard for children, and one that will certainly be appreciated by their parents.
  If the dispute has to continue, the Bill will help to ensure that it does not bear so heavily on the children, particularly young children. It should be welcomed for that reason, if for no other, by both sides of the House. I have the utmost respect for the majority of teachers. I am aware that theirs is not the easiest of jobs. Teaching teenagers in some schools must be difficult, and in some cases it must be purgatory.
  Mr. Greenway: Come off it.
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to say his piece. Many teachers do a most worthwhile job, but it is not always the easiest of jobs. When he reflects on that, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not quarrel with it.
  I am familiar with teachers' work. I was educated within the state system, as were my children, and I visit schools regularly, as I am sure do the majority of hon. Members. I am aware that a teacher's job is much more than long holidays and free periods. I am aware of the additional work that is done at home at nights and in teachers' free time. I also recognise the voluntary work they do in school societies. That knowledge adds to my welcome to the Bill. It enhances the professional part of a teacher's work and removes from teachers a disagreeable chore.
  The Bill should be seen as an outrider to the best package ever offered to the teaching profession. That £1.25 billion is the largest sum ever obtained from the Treasury for the nation's teachers. It is £1.25 billion spread over four years and for teachers' pay, not buildings or books. It is on top of the increments that teachers may quite properly expect over those four years. It improves promotion prospects and helps to reduce the problems caused by falling rolls. I find it surprising that this measure is not more widely welcomed by Opposition Members and by members of the profession. Some uninformed comments about the Bill, which gives teachers what they have desired for years, seem to suggest that it is a cross between a Trojan horse and a poisoned chalice. It is neither; it is nothing of the sort.
  For years teachers' unions have been concerned that their members have been asked to do voluntary duties supervising school dinners. The cry has been, "Either pay us or remove the duties." The unions have complained that this unpaid work was unconnected with a teacher's job. In short, it was unpopular, unwanted and unpaid. One would have thought that my right hon. Friend's decision to make available £10 million in this year and £40 million in the next four years would have been welcomed with paeans of praise, but, sadly, no such luck. The unions now appear to be complaining that the Bill knocks the knives and forks from their hands. They accuse my right hon. Friend of foul play because he is giving them what they have asked for for years. This Bill is a clear commitment to a hardworking profession.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I start by declaring an interest as a consultant to the National Union of Teachers. Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), I am sure that many teachers in his constituency, and no doubt many others who read his words, will be pleased by the praise that he has heaped on the heads of teachers and on their dedication to their work. It was clear from what he said about visiting many schools that he enjoys close contact with the teaching profession in the state system, which is not true of all Conservative Members.
  Given that the hon. Gentleman feels that way, he must be puzzled by the anger throughout the teaching profession about the Secretary of State and his behaviour towards it. He must ask himself, because he has such obvious respect for members of the profession, why there is such enormous anger. A month or two ago I went to a well-attended march
  472
  through the centre of London. It was full of dedicated teachers who felt deeply angry about the Secretary of State's actions.
  It is not our job this evening to discuss the dispute. However, the Bill comes before the House with the background of the dispute behind it. There has been no consultation with the trade unions. One would have thought that it would be normal for the Government to consult trade unions on a matter of this kind. — [Interruption.] Consultation with the employers was also important but, because of the current dispute, consultation with the unions about the Bill was very important.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth that dinner duties are very unpopular. They were very unpopular with me. It is extremely hard work. I knew that the quality of the lessons that I had to teach in the afternoon suffered because of the nervous energy that went into the supervision of not just midday school meals but the playground, too. The fact that there was no respite meant that one's performance as a teacher was not as good as it should have been.
  In addition to causing nervous strain and being very tiring for a full-time teacher, midday supervision needs great skill. People need to be well qualified to carry out that duty. One of the National Union of Teachers' complaints about the sum of money that is to be made available for this purpose is that it is inadequate. Local education authorities will be unable to recruit and employ people who are competent to do this difficult job. I speak from first hand experience. The importance of this job should not be underestimated. If the Secretary of State genuinely wants to answer the demand of teachers that this job should be done by those who have no teaching responsibilities, it is important that it should be funded properly.
  The action that the Secretary of State is taking is highly provocative. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) made it clear that the Secretary of State could have spent this money upon many other things. The dispute is not just about pay or the treatment of individual teachers. The profession is genuinely concerned about the way in which the state education system is being treated by the Government. I do not need to go through the factors that are causing concern. Buildings and school books are just two examples of the way in which the education service is being starved of money.
  We know why the Secretary of State is introducing this Bill as his top priority. He sees it as a weapon in the dispute, without answering the demands of teachers or recognising that the profession is dedicated to the needs of those whom it is its job to serve. When one hears the speeches of Conservative Members, one gets the impression that they feel that teachers must have a new contract of service because they are not doing enough. However, since I was a member of the teaching profession, teachers have voluntarily taken on more and more duties. That is the sign not of a profession that is trying to get rid of responsibilities but of a profession that is anxious to take them on.
  The answer to the problem is not legislation of this kind, which is designed to weaken the hand of teachers in the current dispute. The answer to the settlement of the dispute lies with the Secretary of State. I receive many letters from parents in my constituency who demand that the Secretary of State should accept his responsibilities. They recognise that the Secretary of State must resolve this

  473
  dispute. The blame does not lie with the teachers, as is so often suggested by Conservative Members. That is the reason why the union is opposed to the Bill, why I shall be voting against it, and why I fully support the opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North to the Bill.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: All right hon. and hon. Members respect the professional experience of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). I, too, was a teacher for many years. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the afternoon performance of teachers suffers if they have to perform lunchtime duties. However, if children are not properly supervised at lunchtime, they are less receptive to education in the afternoon. It is a difficult question of swings and roundabouts. If I had to choose, on balance I would always prefer supervision, even if I had to carry it out myself.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was speaking, I chiacked slightly when, as somebody who is not a member of the profession, he referred to teaching. He said that it must sometimes be purgatory to teach teenagers. Although it is very difficult to teach teenagers, I would ask my hon. Friend to think again about that.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Greenway: May I just make my point? It is a difficult, challenging and demanding job, but to the dedicated teacher it is never purgatory.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Greenway: Yes, but I have only two minutes.
  Mr. Pawsey: All I want to say is that my hon. Friend has never sought to teach my sons.
  Mr. Greenway: No. I am interested to hear that my hon. Friend, who is not a qualified teacher, may have found it difficult.
  Mr. Pawsey: I have six sons.
  Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend may have found it difficult because he is not a qualified teacher. The £50 million that has been set aside for a full year needs to be re-examined. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State when he replies to the debate to reassure the House that this sum will be enough. Lunchtime supervision covers not only school meals, but the running of clubs and libraries. Playground supervision is enormously demanding. Supervision of that kind must also be provided and paid for.
  Supervision is also needed in the area around schools. One cannot expect secondary schoolchildren to stay on the premises throughout the lunch break. When they leave school premises, difficult children might enter blocks of flats or other buildings and cause trouble. Consequently, suitable supervisors need to be in the area around schools so that they can deal with trouble if it should arise and get the children back on to the school premises. I wonder, therefore, whether £50 million will be sufficient. I wonder, too, whether this matter has been thought through in the way that I have described.
  A substantial element of supervision by teachers at lunchtime is essential. Supervision of the kind that I have described can be managed if there is a strong teacher
  474
  element, or if it is managed entirely by teachers but it cannot be managed without any teacher help at all, even though head teachers and their deputies would, I know, do a noble job. Teacher supervision is required, because they alone have the expertise to handle children. They alone can provide the educational opportunities that ought to be available at lunch time in any school. Very few people who are not teachers would be able to provide the expertise and educational opportunities that ought to be available in a good school at lunch time.
  In my school, 1,500 school meals were provided each day. This meant that at any one time there would be 500 or 600 children in the dining hall, either queueing for lunch or eating lunch. If suddenly a crisis or quarrel erupted, it required enormous expertise to sort it out and prevent its escalation. It will be difficult for people who are not well qualified to provide that necessary expertise. There is a complete mix of children of all levels of intelligence, from all sorts of social backgrounds and ethnic minorities, as well as from the indigenous community. They should he relaxed, but if there is trouble, as there certainly will be, notably on rainy and windy days, it takes some handling. I hope that the supervision will be adequate.
  School dinners are good for children. It is a good time for extra education in social mores and extra learning in clubs and other areas. Often it is the only square meal a child has in a day, which should also be remembered. I disagree with some Opposition Members, notably the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who said that school meals were under serious attack. They have never been better As children have much more choice, there is much less waste. In the past I have seen buckets and lorry loads of good food taken from schools where it was thrown at children who did not want it.
  The teachers' dispute undoubtedly influences the position. The teaching profession is the greatest profession of all, and it is what counts. To settle the dispute we may need to press hard for an inquiry, and the time has come to do so. The inquiry must not be into pay alone, because it will not settle the question for ever. It is essential to link conditions with pay. I hope that we shall have an inquiry before long and settle this miserable dispute.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Jack Dormand: It is unfortunate that we had three Government statements today which took up a large part of the time for debating this important measure, so I intend to be brief. I shall omit my words of support for the financial statistics which my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) presented lucidly and forthrightly. They are the main factors in the debate.
  The first two Government Back-Bench Members to speak missed the point, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who has much more practical experience, came to the nub of the matter, and I hope that the Minister will take note of what he said.
  The Bill demonstrates yet again the Government's crazy sense of priorities in dealing with education problems The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) dealt with that matter. The best that can be said about the Bill is that it is feeble and inadequate, and the worst is that it lacks understanding, and is malicious and, above all, provocative. For anyone who

  475
  has any interest in the importance of education it is inconceivable that these proposals should be introduced now, during the teachers' dispute.
  Teachers have long pressed for a fully staffed ancillary service for lunchtime supervision. In 1968 the school meals agreement between the Government, local authorities and the teachers' unions recommended minimum levels of supervisory staff. In 1967 during the dispute about school meals supervision I was the education officer for Easington where the dispute was centred. I still have vivid memories of it. One is that the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) cross-examined me in the High Court. Although it was a hotly contested dispute which ended in a legal decision, I never had any doubt that a fully staffed ancillary service must be the objective.
  Since then progress has been undermined by the Government, not least by today's measure. The goodwill and co-operation of teachers is continually demonstrated in many ways. It is proper, therefore, to recall that, despite the court's decision 17 years ago, a large number of teachers voluntarily supervised pupils at lunchtime. That is why I intervened when the Secretary of State kindly gave way while introducing the Bill. That is a measure of teachers' concern. It must never be forgotten that supervision is voluntary, and the withdrawal by teachers of that work during the present dispute is perfectly proper and, what is more, perfectly understandable.
  Some innocents on the Conservative Benches—we have not heard any of them today—and, I was about to say, devious characters, but I shall absolve them of that accusation, will say, and have said, "Why are the teachers grumbling? We are proposing to provide the ancillary staff for which they are asking." The answer is that the £40 million allocated is completely inadequate for funding a fully staffed service. That was the burden of the argument of the hon. Member from Ealing, North. It shows that the Government are not taking the matter sufficiently seriously. Moreover—some of my hon. Friends may disagree with me on this—it will be no easy task to find staff of the right calibre. They will have to possess the right kind of personality, be sympathetic to and knowledgeable about children, and, above all—
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Trained.
  Mr. Dormand: I shall come to that point in a moment—have an authority which will make lunchtime the orderly, civilised and pleasant occasion that it should be. Such people are few and far between, as I know from the difficulties that I had in recruiting them many years ago.
  To recruit such people will require adequate financing and training. If we do not face that fact, we shall not meet the desired objectives. Anything short of that will be self-defeating. It is essential that the scheme should include the training of supervisory personnel, which will also require money. It is obvious to everyone except the Government that, if lunchtime supervision by ancillary staff is to succeed, it must meet two criteria. First, there must be sufficient money for it, and, secondly, it must be separate from any moneys identified as being available for teachers' salaries. The proposals in the Bill do not meet those criteria. That is another sign of the Government's hasty and ill-considered attitude towards an important part of the education of our children.
  476
  When historians come to write the story of present-day Tory Governments, two words will be used more than any others—confrontation and provocation. We have a perfect example of those two attitudes in the Bill. The £10 million for this financial year and the £40 million for the next financial year are to be clawed back from the new money that the Secretary of State has made available for teachers' salaries between 1986 and 1990.
  I have to tell the Secretary of State, as if he did not already know, that to take £50 million for the payment of meals supervisors will increase not just the anger but the determination of the teachers in the present dispute. Such provocation will do nothing to resolve the present salary dispute; it will exacerbate it. Not just teachers, but parents will see through the Government's transparently sham gesture.
  I am one of those people who believe that few things in this life are of more importance than education. From my many years' experience, I know that, however good the facilities, the equipment and the buildings, the ultimate success rests with the teachers. The Government have consistently failed to recognise that, and they are compounding that with the Bill. If they insist on carrying it through, they will increase the antagonism of the teaching profession, it will create a distrust which will take years to eradicate and, perhaps more importantly, leave a mark on thousands of children in our schools. For the Government to indulge in what I can only describe as the sleight of hand shown in the Bill is not just a disgrace: it is a demonstration once again of the low priority that they place on education. I urge the Government to think again.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I shall concentrate on two points because many of the other issues that I wished to mention have been discussed by my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made a substantial point when he talked about an inquiry into the teachers' pay dispute. I am sure that that would receive a great deal of sympathy from my hon. Friends.
  I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) that the Bill shows where the Government's priorities lie. The National Confederation of Parent-Teachers Associations has just presented to us a damaging report on education in terms of classroom relationships and the fabric of education. If the Government have money to spend, it should be spent on dealing with some of the problems to which the report drew so much attention.
  At best, the timing of the Bill is inept. The Government have not gone in for the necessary consultation with the teachers and the employers. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said that when the Government's history comes to be written, terms such as "confrontation" and "provocation" will be used. One word that will never be used about the Government is "consultation".
  The Government have introduced a measure that does not seem to give much thought to dealing with many of the detailed problems related to the midday supervision. It might be useful if the Government were to listen to the hon. Member for Ealing, North on this occasion. He talked about many of those problems. Who will train the supervisors? What will the relationship be between them

  477
  and the teachers? What will be the nature of the disciplinary relationship? None of those questions has been answered by the Secretary of State.
  At worst, the Bill's timing is provocative because the Secretary of State is saying that this measure will weaken the bargaining position of the teachers' unions. That is the Bill's purpose. The parents have the right to ask the Secretary of State one simple question: what are the Government doing to protect our children's education? I speak as a parent who has suffered because his children cannot enjoy a regular education. I want to know what the Government will do to ensure that my children and many others will receive a regular education.
  I shall remind the Secretary of State of the position in the city that we both have the pleasure to represent in the House of Commons. In Leeds, 21,000 pupil half-day sessions have been lost between September and mid-November. Not one child or school has not suffered from the dispute. What is the Secretary of State doing about that? The Bill will not resolve the problems. It will exacerbate them and make the difficulties that much greater.
  On many occasions, the Secretary of State has claimed that he is the friend of parents and children. His action in introducing the Bill points to the opposite conclusion. The Government are not worried about parents or children. They merely want to use them as pawns in the teachers' dispute and in a confrontation with the teachers' unions. For those reasons, I shall vote against the Bill.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to be taking part in the debate, but I am a little sad that I had to cancel a meeting with Tameside teachers to be here. They made it clear that they were happy to rearrange that meeting on the basis that I would strongly express their views to the Government. They feel bitter because the Government have done nothing to solve the dispute in the nine months that it has continued. The Secretary of State has made any resolution of the dispute more difficult by making frequent provocative statements.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), I welcome the Minister of State to his new position. I hope that his appointment is not just cosmetic and a facelift, but that he will introduce a new policy and a new way of solving the dispute. If he manages that, I hope that he has the same success as the Secretary of State for the Environment who went in to bolster up the image of a Department and soon took it over.
  Will the Minister explain why the Government are seeking to amend the Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984 to bring in this proposal? It is muddling the legislation, and it is a parliamentary device to avoid scrutiny. The Government want Second Reading today. I gather that they want the Committee stage of the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. They want to rush the Bill through late at night in the week before Christmas.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman cannot call this late.
  Mr. Bennett: Not now, but the hon. Gentleman should wait for Committee and Report.
  It is unfortunate, because there are important issues to consider. We must consider how head teachers and their deputies will organise supervision at lunchtime. I hope that the Minister will tell us what will happen about choir
  478
  practices, preparing children for the Duke of Edinburgh's award, and all the other things that take place at lunchtime. Do they come down to teaching or supervision? The tragedy of the past nine months has not been that a little more custard has been spilt on the floor in the dining rooms or one or two more spoons have been twisted by the pupils; it is all the other lunchtime activities, which I regard not as supervision but as an essential part of education.
  The activities that I have mentioned have disappeared. What will be the relationship between the sums of money provided for in the Bill and those activities? Will there be national pay rates and conditions of service for lunchtime supervision, or are the Government trying to pick off areas of high unemployment where people are desperate for jobs in the hope that those people will take the work at extremely low rates of pay?
  What will happen in those areas where over recent years the lunchtime has been reduced? It has become almost a lunchtime gobble. The food is eaten, but little else happens. Many schools would be better with a much longer lunchtime. Will the legislation make it possible to bring back many of the things that went on during the lunchtime? When will the Minister stand up for education and obtain a little more public expenditure for it? Since 1979, as a proportion of GDP, spending on education has decreased each year. If we were spending now on education the same as we were in 1979 as a proportion of GDP, we should be spending about £2.2 billion extra. Such money would go a long way not just towards solving the dispute, but towards helping many other education issues.
  I ask the Government to consider carefully how they should try to solve this dispute. Digging their heels in and insisting that they will not move from their position will not solve the problem.
  This measure is an insult to teachers. The Government have totally destroyed the morale of teachers, and they now have a major task to rebuild that morale. The first thing they must do is to find a means of settling the dispute with honour and to the satisfaction of teachers. Until the Government do that, the Opposition will vote against miserable little measures like this Bill.
  6.51 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): I shall on this occasion be mercifully brief. I remind the House that the main aim of this small but valuable Bill is to secure adequate and reliable supervision at midday in our schools and so safeguard the education of pupils. The Government hope, through the Bill and associated proposals, to bring art end to the disruption at midday that has plagued our schools in recent months.
  In taking this action the Government are responding to an argument which has been put by teachers increasingly forcefully—except perhaps in recent days—for the best part of the past 40 years. I am therefore surprised that the Bill should be seen as being vindictive, and all the other words associated with "vindictive" in "Roget's Thesaurus".
  I am also surprised that the Bill should be seen as an attack on allegedly helpless teachers. I do not deny that we are seeking to remove from the teachers a weapon which they have deliberately used during the dispute at virtually no cost to themselves. They have been able to use this weapon only because it is something which they now do

  479
  voluntarily. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) made an important point, and the Government are responding to that and placing the teachers' right to a break at midday beyond debate.
  The hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) and for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said that the Government's action was provocative. They did not mix their metaphors to the extent that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) did when he called the proposal a cross between a Trojan horse and a poisoned chalice. I was delighted with my hon. Friend's metaphor. Opposition Members have said that the teachers wish to continue doing the work voluntarily, so that they can stop doing it whenever they wish. That is an extraordinary proposition, and there is not much principle or professionalism about that. The Government cannot accept that argument, nor could any local education authority employer.
  It is not sensible to suggest, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) did, that the supervision can be carried out only by teachers. More than 80,000 people who are not teachers are already employed to assist in supervising children and many adults are responsible for the safety and welfare of children in other situations.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East claimed that the money in the proposals was not new money. I can put his mind at rest and say that it is new money, as it is additional to our existing plans for educational spending. As from next year it will be new money, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the education support grant. I am afraid that, unusually, he was slightly selective in his quotation. One of the purposes of ESG when it was introduced was to help
  "LEAs to respond swiftly to new demands on the education service".—[Official Report, 14 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 630.]
  That is what the Secretary of State said on the Second Reading of the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill. The need to substitute for the help which teachers are no longer willing to give is a new demand to which local education authorities need to make a swift response.
  I should like to echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and commend the very hard work and sterling efforts of many head teachers over recent months which have helped to keep many schools open. I realise the strain that they have suffered and acknowledge that they have behaved with great commitment. The new arrangements should provide head teachers with sufficient assistance at midday to discharge this responsibility without undue fuss. In future they will have staff whose contractual duty is to supervise at midday. This should greatly ease their position, but they will naturally retain overall responsibility for the running of the school.
  The head teachers have been offered the opportunity to comment on the draft of the circular that is in the Library. The Government intend to send that circular to all education authorities outlining the arrangements if the legislation is passed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) wondered whether £40 million would be
  480
  sufficient in the circumstances. Even if one compares that sum with what is spent at present, or with the proposals put forward following the Rossetti committee, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the figure of £40 million seems adequate. The additions were arrived at after careful consideration of the number of extra supervisors who might be required in schools of different sizes and the likely range of costs implied. The £10 million to be made available for the remainder of this year and the £40 million for 1986–87 will suffice to allow adequate new arrangements to be introduced.
  In response to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I confirm that the arrangements will be worked out by local education authorities. If the Government had decided to introduce a national scheme, the hon. Gentleman would doubtless have criticised us for centralising the education service. The Government are proceeding in a very sensible way.
  The main thrust of the argument from the Opposition, as recounted by the hon. Member for Durham, North, is that the Bill is the Government's only response to the distressing dispute which has done and is doing so much damage to the education service. That argument is a travesty of the truth. For over a year the Government have been pressing for a new deal for teachers based on higher pay in return for a definition of teachers' duties and a new salary structure. Negotiations have consistently been blocked by the leadership of one union, which talks grimly of keeping the disruption going until the next election. So much for professionalism.
  Last August the Government put £1.25 billion on the table to facilitate a new deal. If that is inflexibility, all I can say is that that is the sort of inflexibility which most other professional groups and public sector pay workers would be very happy to endure.
  The Government's offer to the unions in September, which unlocked the £1.25 billion of new additional money, was rightly described by one of the local authority employers—not a Conservative employer—as the most radical and imaginative ever for teachers. It was a deal which would have given teachers two increases this year and an average end-of-year increase of 8 per cent. That deal would have given two out of three teachers a very substantial amount of extra money indeed on top of their normal pay awards.
  Even allowing for the margin of linguistic excess to which Oppositions are committed by ancient tradition—one could call that the Kaufman factor—to describe the offer made last August, in view of the way the National Union of Teachers has behaved, and the whole history of the dispute, as examples of a hardhearted Government acting inflexibly, is ludicrously intemperate and ludicrously wide of the mark.
  We want to see the teachers get back to negotiation. We want to see an early end to this bitter, damaging and totally unnecessary dispute, on terms which are fair and honourable all round and on terms which will last and which will ensure that we do not go through all this again. I wish I were convinced that that was the view of the leadership of the National Union of Teachers. In the meantime, until we get such a settlement, we are acting in the Bill to remove a long-standing grievance. The Bill, therefore, like the Government's behaviour throughout the dispute, deserves the support of the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 87.

  Division No. 18]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Amess, David

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Arnold, Tom

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Ashby, David

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Jackson, Robert

  Best, Keith

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Body, Richard

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Key, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Budgen, Nick

  Knowles, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Knox, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Lang, Ian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Latham, Michael

  Cash, William

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lester, Jim

  Chope, Christopher

  Lightbown, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lilley, Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Coombs, Simon

  Lord, Michael

  Cope, John

  Luce, Richard

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Critchley, Julian

  McCrindle, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Dorrell, Stephen

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Den

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Durant, Tony

  Maclean, David John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Madel, David

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Major, John

  Farr, Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Favell, Anthony

  Maples, John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Marlow, Antony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Forman, Nigel

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Forth, Eric

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fox, Marcus

  Moore, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Murphy, Christopher

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Freeman, Roger

  Nelson, Anthony

  Galley, Roy

  Normanton, Tom

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Norris, Steven

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gow, Ian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Greenway, Harry

  Parris, Matthew

  Gregory, Conal

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Pawsey, James

  Ground, Patrick

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Portillo, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Powley, John

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Price, Sir David

  Hayward, Robert

  Raffan, Keith

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Heddle, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Henderson, Barry

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hind, Kenneth

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Holt, Richard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  482

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Shersby, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Speller, Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Spencer, Derek

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watts, John

  Stanley, John

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Steen, Anthony

  Whitney, Raymond

  Stern, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Sumberg, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Mr. Francis Maude

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Barnett, Guy

  Leighton, Ronald

  Barron, Kevin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McKelvey, William

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Marek, Dr John

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Meacher, Michael

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michie, William

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Corbett, Robin

  O'Brien, William

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Park, George

  Crowther, Stan

  Pike, Peter

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

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

  Radice, Giles

  Deakins, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Dormand, Jack

  Redmond, M.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fatchett, Derek

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Flannery, Martin

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Foster, Derek

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Short, Mrs R.(Whampt'n NE)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Soley, Clive

  Freud, Clement

  Spearing, Nigel

  George, Bruce

  Tinn, James

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Wallace, James

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Welsh, Michael

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Winnick, David

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Home Robertson, John

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Howells, Geraint

  Mr. Mark Fisher.

  Questions accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lang.]
  Committee tomorrow.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase in payments out of money provided by Parliament resulting from substituting '1 per cent.' for '0.5 per cent.' in section 2(1) of the Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984.—[Mr. Lang.]

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
7.12 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move,
That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (No. 1) Order 1985, dated 24th October 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required by section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to issue codes of practice governing the exercise by the police of their powers of stop and search, the search of premises and the seizure of property, and the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons by the police. Section 67 requires him to lay these orders before Parliament for its approval, and to bring them into operation by statutory instrument.
The codes before the House tonight have gone through a long period of gestation and consultation. The first drafts of some of them appeared as long ago as 1982, and they have been subject to substantial discussion and amendment, first during the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which fell with the election of June 1983, and then during that of its successor, which entered the statute book a year ago.
The official "consultative" text of the four codes was published in January this year, since when we have received comments from a wide range of groups and organisations, including those representing the police service, the legal profession, civil liberties interests, and particular community groups. We have sought to take careful account of those views in preparing a final draft of the codes, which were laid before Parliament on 23 October. Inevitably comments from different groups were occasionally in conflict with one another, but our objective has been to reconcile those different approaches as far as possible. The approach that we have adopted has been that of the Act itself—to present a balanced package which gives the police the powers that they need in dealing with crime, but which also provides workable and effective safeguards for the citizen who comes into contact with the police.
It is the Government's intention to bring the remaining provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act into force on 1 January 1986. They deal with police powers and procedures and with rules of criminal evidence. If Parliament approves the codes of practice, they too will come into effect on 1 January. We are coming to the end of the long process of reforming the law on police powers, which began with the establishment of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure in 1978, and there can be no doubt about the importance of what has been achieved. Taken together, the Act and the codes represent a major change in a vital area of national life—the way in which our society is policed.
It might help to remind the House that it was concerns at the inadequacy of police powers, combined with concerns at the inadequacy of controls over police powers, which led to the establishment of the Royal Commission. One of the major events triggering public disquiet at police methods of questioning suspects was of course the Confait case. In 1975 three young men who had earlier been convicted of grave offences, including murder, man-slaughter and arson, had their convictions quashed by the

485
Court of Appeal because it formed the view that the police investigation had not been conducted satisfactorily and that the suspects' confessions were unreliable.
Sir Henry Fisher's inquiry into the case pointed to a number of weaknesses in the way in which the police had kept records of their investigation and had interviewed and obtained confessions from the suspects. The Fisher report concluded that no police officer had deliberately falsified the record. The police had tried to record as accurately as possible their questions and the answers given by the suspects. But established procedures had not been followed in a number of important respects—in particular, the provisions of the judges rules and Home Office administrative directions to the police requiring juveniles to be interviewed in the presence of a parent or guardian, that leading questions should not be asked when a suspect makes a statement, and that suspects be informed of the rights and facilities available to them to get in touch with a solicitor or their friends.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): What steps does the Minister propose to take to enforce the codes of practice, because in recent experimental operations in the metropolitan area they seem to have been breached more often that kept?
Mr. Shaw: I fully understand that the hon. Gentleman is referring to events in the metropolitan area. He will be aware that the codes of practice are not yet in force, but when they are he should rest assured that in certain criminal evidence cases, for example, if they are to be produced in evidence, they will play their part as a full legal document. The codes of practice will become part of the police code, and thus any officer who fails to observe them will be liable to the disciplinary procedure.
The Royal Commission on criminal procedure was set up in the aftermath of the Fisher report by the then Labour Government, under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Philips. It was charged with the duty of considering whether changes were needed in the powers and duties of the police in investigating criminal offences, and the rights and duties of suspect and accused persons. It was also asked to review the prosecution system and any relevant features of criminal procedure. The Royal Commission reported in 1981 after carrying out a most thorough and helpful review of the criminal process. It presented a devastating analysis of the inconsistencies and inadequacies of the present law, which has grown up piecemeal to meet the need of particular circumstances or particular parts of the country. The commission highlighted clearly the uncertainties about the boundaries of police powers, which are neither good for the professionalism of the police, nor conducive to a climate of public confidence. To meet those defects in the present system, the Royal Commission proposed a series of major reforms. I need not remind the House that the Government's response reached the statute book after unprecedentedly detailed parliamentary consideration.
The process inherent in the Act—of identifying the powers that the police need in combating crime on our behalf, of spelling out those powers in terms that police and public alike can understand and operate, and of setting alongside powers the safeguards necessary to demonstrate that they will be used responsibly and only where appropriate—has underlaid the preparation of the codes also. The notion of codes of practice comes from the Royal Commission, which argued that the vagueness of the
486
judges rules needed to be replaced with explicit and workable instructions, subject to parliamentary approval, but capable of amendment and variation as experience or changing circumstances require. We have sought to frame the codes in language easily understandable to police and public alike, but the fact that the codes are not drafted in parliamentary language in no way lessens their significance.
The provisions of the codes are binding on police officers in the all-important sense that breach of a provision renders the officer concerned liable to disciplinary proceedings, and that the codes are admissible, as I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), in evidence in criminal and disciplinary proceedings. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the codes mean business and will have a real effect on the way in which the police conduct investigations.
Let me now describe the codes of practice. The code of practice for the exercise by police officers of statutory powers of stop and search applies both to existing police powers of stop and search and to the new power provided by the 1984 Act. It sets out the standard to be satisfied before the necessary reasonable grounds for suspicion may be said to exist to justify the use of the search power. It provides for how searches are to be conducted and it lays down the action to be taken after a search is carried out.
There is a careful balance to be struck here. The Government believe—in common with the Royal Commission—that stop and search powers are an important tool for the police in the detection of crime and the prevention of further offences. It will also be invaluable for the police to have a general power, short of arrest, for dealing with those they suspect of the carriage of stolen goods or offensive weapons: rather than arresting the suspect, as they would be empowered to do, the police will be able to confirm or deny their original suspicion by a quick search. That will be in everyone's interest.
Mr. Clive Soley: In coming to that conclusion, did the Minister take into account evidence from the Policy Studies Institute report on the Metropolitan police, the Merseyside crime study and the British crime survey, all of which suggested that stop and search was not an effective way of arresting and convicting people?
Mr. Shaw: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in that matter; he has asked me several questions on it. We had some information about how such matters were handled by various police forces but, as is obvious to the House, we have concluded that stop and search will still provide an important power for detaining suspects and ultimately bringing people before the courts. I accept that there have been variable experiences, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that paragraph 2.2 about stop and search omits the racist important point—that the person who is stopped to be searched is not reminded of his right to silence?
Mr. Shaw: I was coming to that. I think that what I shall say will answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
The Government fully recognise the sensitivities involved in the use of such powers. Used inappropriately, or without a proper attempt to minimise the embarrassment

487
inevitably associated with being searched in public, the power can damage police relations with the community, and lead to tensions with particular groups. Thus the 1984 Act itself provides certain safeguards designed to ensure that such powers are used accountably and only in the circumstances intended by Parliament; the code takes that process forward by spelling out in more detail what police officers are empowered to do and how they should go about the task. The code, I believe, will enable police officers to make full use of that important power, without any of the adverse effects that critics have predicted, although I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about variable experiences.
The second code deals with the searching of premises and the seizure of property by the police. The Royal Commission referred to that as
"the power of the police to intrude on to private premises in order to enforce the law and to investigate crime".
The need for caution in that area is obvious. There can be few experiences more distressing than for one's home to be entered and searched, and that too is one of the sensitive areas of police powers, where the greatest care is needed if police relationships with the public are not to be endangered. But a proper power for the police to search premises in the investigation and detection of crime is equally essential. We cannot permit crime to be safely carried out in the security of private homes, or evidence of crime hidden there, because the police do not have proper powers to enter and search and seize illegally possessed property or evidence.
Existing police powers relate to a haphazard selection of offences and leave some curious gaps. For example, there is no power to enter and search the scene of a murder or kidnap, and most powers relate to items in unlawful possession, rather than to evidence of offences or offenders. The new powers in part II of the Act are an attempt to remedy that while establishing a general procedure governing all warrant applications by constables. As with that on stop and search, this code of practice takes forward the Act's provisions by providing detailed instructions for the police on applying for search warrants and production orders, and also for searching premises with the consent of the occupier.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: The Minister rightly emphasised the necessity for all police officers to be concerned about their relationship with the public, but nowhere does the code set out a method by which such operations should be carried out. For instance, it does not refer to police officers going to the wrong address, which often happens in London. There is never an apology forthcoming from the police for having made a mistake. When they enter premises, pieces of personal property are often slung or thrown from drawers on to the floor. The police go through the premises as if there were a burglary. No remedy for that behaviour is suggested. As with stop and search, it is a matter of opinion. The Minister says that the behaviour of the police is subject to disciplinary measures, but discipline depends upon opinion. That is not good enough.
Mr. Shaw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, he will see that on page 30 of code B, paragraph 5C of the notes for guidance says:
488
"If the wrong premises are searched by mistake, everything possible should be done at the earliest opportunity to allay any sense of grievance. In appropriate cases assistance should be given to obtain compensation."
Therefore, there is a reference in the code to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. Guidance has to be issued on interpretation. A guidance note will be issued to all police officers by a Home Office circular, which lends further weight to how the codes should operate.
Recent tragic events have demonstrated vividly the need for sensitivity in this area. The power to enter and search premises is essential to the police in the investigation of crime, but its exercise must be carefully controlled. Innocent people must not suffer as a consequence and every precaution must be taken by the police to ensure that it does not lead to unforeseen results. The terrible outcome of the searches in Brixton and Tottenham must and will keep that danger at the forefront of our minds. As the House knows, those events are still the subject of investigation by the Police Complaints Authority and we do not yet know the outcome or what steps the Government can take to ensure that they do not happen again. But it is—and it has always been—the Government's objective to provide proper safeguards on the exercise of police powers, and I can assure the House that the Government will look closely at the authority's findings to see whether they show a need to make additional provisions in the codes. If they do, we shall not hesitate to bring fresh proposals to Parliament.
Mr. Alex Carlile: What the Minister said about ensuring that the police behave properly in accordance with the codes at the time of carrying out a search is entirely laudable, but, at the same time as issuing new circulars to police officers, will the Home Office ensure that it is drawn to the attention of magistrates that if they act simply as a rubber stamp when search warrants are applied for they are not doing their job? I am afraid that it is a fact, as I think the Minister knows, that some—no doubt a minority—magistrates are all too prepared to grant almost anything if the police apply for it.
Mr. Shaw: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I have little doubt that when all the reports are in about the events that led to the incidents with which the House is so familiar, many lessons will be drawn from them, and that might be one.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: In the light of what my hon. Friend said about the incidents in Tottenham and Brixton, when police officers were armed when they entered the premises, would he think it appropriate, when a revision of the code of practice is considered, to insert a paragraph stating that armed police officers should say on entering the premises that they are armed, to avoid incidents such as the one in Brixton, which had such devastating consequences?
Mr. Shaw: That pre-empts the point that I was intending to make later. It is likely that the Police Complaints Authority, in its consideration of investigations into the incident involving the tragic shooting of Mrs. Groce, will make recommendations on firearms practice. I shall await the recommendations of that report before taking the matter further, but I appreciate the issue which my hon. Friend has raised.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The recent cases to which the Minister has referred involve serious matters. In one

489
recent case it is reported that the police took a young lad into custody and then used his keys to gain access to his parents' property. He was not under arrest at that stage. I accept that the Police Complaints Authority is investigating the case, but I ask the Minister to consider whether the guidance notes need revision to take into account the use of an individual's keys.
Mr. Shaw: I cannot speculate on the appropriate action to take in the light of the detailed report and the investigation of the incident which the hon. Gentleman has described. The hon. Gentleman will know that detailed reports are being made and are being carefully considered where necessary by the Director of Public Prosecutions as well as the Police Complaints Authority. No doubt we shall have the opportunity to discuss what these reports teach us about police practice and behaviour. All such reports will be considered and, if necessary, amendments will be made to the codes now before the House.
The present draft of the codes, even in relation to these problems and to searching, is as far as we can go at the present. Implementation will lead to major improvements.
After implementation, the police will be under a statutory duty to observe the codes' provisions, and failure to do so will be a disciplinary offence. This is no empty sanction and the police have not been slow to enforce their discipline. For example, in 1984, the last year for which we have full figures, 79 officers were dismissed or obliged to resign, 21 resigned after disciplinary charges had been preferred, 61 resigned while under investigation and 29 were reduced in rank. This was as a result of public complaints or internal disciplinary reviews. The House will be aware that part IX of the Act, which deals with complaints and discipline, has been in force since 29 April. This has established an independent system for investigating complaints against the police, and I am satisfied that it will provide an effective means of ensuring that the provisions of the codes are properly observed.
The code of practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers is the longest of the codes and represents a major landmark. It is designed to underpin the statutory provisions of the 1984 Act dealing with the rights of suspects who are detained and questioned by the police by setting out very detailed provisions governing the way in which suspects may be treated. The code replaces the judges rules, and the Lord Chief Justice has agreed that the latter should be withdrawn when the code comes into effect. The code reflects the traditional safeguards of our criminal justice system. Any person who attends voluntarily at a police station has the right to leave when he wishes, and any person who is at a police station under arrest has the right to have someone informed of his whereabouts, and the right to consult a solicitor.
Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that there is a gaping hole in the codes for those who attend police stations voluntarily? On page 38, guidance note 1A refers to the person who attends voluntarily and who should receive the same consideration. However, these rights cannot be enforced. Nobody can enforce these rights on behalf of the voluntary attender. It would be a good idea to have the code redrafted now to give the custody officer the duty of enforcing the rights of a person who attends voluntarily.
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the code of practice will become a disciplinary matter for police officers in certain circumstances. Those who have the duty, as the custody officer has, to implement the provisions of the Act and the codes in relation to the treatment of those detained will have to carry out the provisions or face disciplinary charges. I accept that this is not a law relating to third parties. It is a description of how the police are to operate their powers of duty under the Act. It is a substantial improvement, but if it is not seen to be adequate, we shall carry out a review. I shall think about the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If during the debate he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to elaborate on the point.
The Act has provided for circumstances where the police may delay the exercise of these rights, and the code may reflect this, but the principle is unimpaired. The exercise of rights may be delayed but not prevented. I refer to the right to have someone informed of a person's whereabouts and the right to consult a solicitor. The code requires the police to detain suspects in decent conditions and to provide for their normal needs, including the attention of a doctor, should this be necessary. The requirement on the police to caution suspects before questioning them in the code—I trust the hon. Gentleman will recognise this—preserves the right to silence.
I spoke earlier of the Fisher report and the comments it made about the questioning of suspects to obtain evidence. It was especially concerned about the position of people who might be at particular risk because of their youth, mental illness or handicap, inability to understand English, or other disability. The code of practice places on the police a special duty when questioning such people. It requires the presence of a responsible adult who can look after the suspect's interests in any case where the suspect is young, mentally ill or handicapped, or where he may be unable for any other reason to understand the significance of questions put to him or his replies. This includes deaf people who may be unable to communicate by lip reading or writing. Some right hon. Members have recently expressed concern about the effectiveness of the safeguards for deaf people and I have met representatives of the British Deaf Association to discuss these fears. I must make it clear that the Government are concerned to ensure that no group in society is exposed to risk and that all receive adequate safeguards for their rights. The safeguards which exist at present appear to work satisfactorily—no complaints have been made which relate to the exercise of police powers in dealing with suspects who are deaf, and the Government are not aware of any difficulties which have arisen. I am prepared to provide further clarification or guidance in the Home Office circular to the police in respect of these individuals.
I have recently written to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) outlining the proposals that I would make. I understand that the proposals may have the support of the right hon. Gentleman, but no doubt the hon. Member for Hammersmith will refer to this.
The right to have an interpreter is given to those who have difficulty in understanding English, and I am taking steps to have the notice of rights, which the police are required to give to all detainees, translated into the languages of the immigrant communities.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister guarantee that similar rights will be given to Welsh-speaking people?
Mr. Shaw: I think that I shall have to say yes, because in the areas where police notices are usually displayed in Welsh they will have this notice displayed in that language. I do not know whether that is the answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman expected me to give.
A most important right of the suspect is the freedom to consult a solicitor. The statutory basis for this is in section 58 of the Act, and the code sets out how this right may be given practical effect. Section 59 provides for the creation of a 24-hour duty solicitor scheme. The purpose is to ensure that legal advice is available outside normal working hours so that the right to consult a lawyer is not made meaningless for those who are detained at night or during weekends. The House will be aware of the Government's commitment to the establishment of this scheme from 1 January when these provisions come into effect.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor announced the details of the scheme last July in another place. The House will be aware that the scheme entails a distinction being made between those being interviewed in connection with the more serious offences, which the Act defines as "arrestable" offences, where there will be no fixed limit on the amount of advice which may be given, and non-arrestable offences, where there will be a maximum. I am aware of the concern that has been expressed in some quarters, but I am sure that it is not justified. We have sought to ensure that proper provision is made for all suspects who wish to consult a lawyer at a police station.
I am aware of the concern that has been expressed in some quarters at the restriction that is represented by the £50 limit on advice that is given where suspects are detained in connection with non-arrestable offences. A limit of some form was unavoidable because the Government could not accept an open-ended public expenditure commitment. However, the figure chosen in the lower-tier cases reflects the cost of providing advice in the majority of such cases in the pilot studies which have been carried out.
Mr. Greg Knight: There is a potential problem with the £50 scheme. As I understand it, travelling time and travelling expenses are included in the £50. If a solicitor has to travel for 30 or 40 minutes to reach the police station, that will reduce the amount of advice that he can give on his arrival. Surely that is wrong. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to reconsider the inclusion of travelling time and expenses within the £50 scheme.
Mr. Shaw: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct. It is my understanding that the provisions include payment for solicitors on the basis of £30 standby payment, £36 per hour for work done during out-of-office hours in dealing with arrestable offences and £27 per hour if the work relates to non-arrestable offences, which is a category within the £50 limit. Payment will be made for travelling time, time spent waiting and travelling expenses. Solicitors will be paid £10 for each telephone call in which legal advice is given. I put it to my hon. Friend that that is not an unreasonable offer. I trust that the House will agree that the provisions are fair and reasonable.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Is my hon. Friend aware that concern has been expressed that the
492
duty of the solicitor will not extend to the relatives of detainees? At present, many relatives of detainees telephone duty solicitors to seek advice, which is understandable. In future, solicitors will not be able to obtain payment by the state for duties that they have undertaken in giving advice to relatives who are understandably concerned about those who are being held in custody.
Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He is talking about a third party being informed of the whereabouts and the condition, for example, of the individual who is detained. The Act, the code and the provisions that we are discussing deal with the conduct of police officers towards those who are detained in police stations. Third parties do not come within these provisons, but I note my hon. Friend's point. He will be aware that the duty of the custody officer will take account of the need to contact third parties if that is requested. Recovery of their costs does not come within the ambit of the duty solicitor scheme.
The final code deals with the identification of persons by police officers. It sets out procedures for holding identity parades and group identifications, for confrontation by witnesses, street identification, the use of photographs, fingerprints and body samples. The code deals with the circumstances in which force may be used to take fingerprints, and in which fingerprints, photographs and body samples must be destroyed. Identification evidence is often a vital tool in the investigation of offences and it is vital that it should be accurate and obtained in circumstances that leave no grounds for allegations that it is misleading or unfair.
The Government's aim in preparing these codes has been to ensure that they represent good professional standards of policing. We recognise that they have involved the police in a major training exercise, which is now nearing completion. This has itself produced benefits for them in giving them an opportunity to review the operation of their service, and in future it will greatly simplify the training of new recruits. I fully understand the anxiety many police officers feel at the introduction of these new procedures. Change on this scale is bound to be an unsettling experience. However, a number of forces have been operating the provisions of the Act and the codes which do not require legislation for some little time, and the message that is emerging clearly is that it is not as difficult to do as they feared it might be. Once they have become familiar with the new procedures, police officers in these forces have found that initial difficulties are resolved and they are able to implement the Act effectively. A good example of this is in Reading, where the town's police have been operating a trial run now for about a year. Their experience has been successful, and they are by no means alone.
The codes of practice should be seen as what their name suggests. They must reflect what is practicable. They are not engraved in stone for all time. They are subject to the statutory instrument procedure and are not part of the Act itself so that they can be set out in workmanlike language, rather than the formality of statute. I would not discount the need, in due course, as I hinted earlier, to add to the codes or to amend them in the light of experience and to meet new situations which may arise. The House can be

493
assured that my Department will keep their operation under close review and that we shall be ready to propose any changes that we are satisfied are necessary.
7.47 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I thank the Minister for the generous way in which he has used his time and for answering some difficult questions. We appreciate that.
The aim of the four codes is to provide clear and workable guidelines for the police as well as to strengthen safeguards for the individual. That is a worthy intention, but one that the Government have not lived up to as well as they could. That is why the Opposition are concerned about the codes. I am not convinced that they are as clear as they could be or as workable as they should be. I am certainly not convinced that they include the necessary safeguards. As the Government's law-and-order policies get into more and more difficulty and produce devastating effects on the people who live with the consequences of crime and inner city disturbances, the last thing that is wanted is guidance that is not as effective as it should be.
The Government have managed to cause concern among members of the public generally as well as among the police and lawyers. I shall take up some of those concerns in my remarks, but, first, I wish to thank the Minister for agreeing to a request from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) concerning representations made by the British Deaf Association. My right hon. Friend asked me to convey to the Minister that he wished to be in his place tonight to mention that himself. Instead, he is with Mr. Speaker this evening. I have read the letter that has been drafted in response to my right hon. Friend's request, and it is clearly a helpful response from the Minister.
The Minister has said that the contents of the letter will be issued as further guidance to the police. I am not sure whether he intends at some time to incorporate them into the relevant code. I am concerned about having a code which contains footnotes that are not part of it and, in addition, having circulars sent round to police stations as additions. The Minister used the word "circulars". It seems that we shall have three levels of information in the codes.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has responded on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). The information contained in Home Office circulars is the way in which we normally give guidance to each and every police officer on how he should early out his duty under statutory provision, such as the Act, or the codes. It seems that that is the quickest and most flexible way of making officers aware of the issues raised by the British Deaf Association. I take on board the point that if in due course the codes are to be revised, we can consider bringing within them the kind of points that have been made.
Mr. Soley: I am grateful for that explanation. The Minister will understand the concern. A note can be sent round to police stations which, although it has some impact when it first arrives, can quite quickly get lost in the papers. In the long run we must look at the codes themselves.
That is linked to some concern that we have as a result of the Confait case, to which the Minister referred. I am
494
anxious that the subnormal and mentally ill should have their rights explained to them, either by having a solicitor or a friend present or by being given a clear and straightforward oral explanation. We shall be examining the way in which the codes of practice are carried out with some considerable concern in view of the special circumstances of the Confait case. I shall have a little more to say about representation in a case like that where an unarrestable offence can become an arrestable one.
As the codes supersede the judges rules, they need to be clear and workable. In my view, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 increases considerably the bureaucratic load on the police without necessarily improving the civil rights of the person brought into the police station. In that way, I think that the Act gives us the worst of both possible worlds.
I welcome the statement that the code of practice must be made readily available at all police stations for the police, public and detained persons. Lay members of groups, such as Lambeth police consultative committee which had a considerable input in this regard, should make sure that the codes are easily available to any member of the public and any detained person who wishes to see them.
I return to the guidance notes, which are not part of the provisions of the code. Note 1A on page 13 says:
"It is important to ensure that powers of stop and search are used responsibly and sparingly and only where reasonable grounds for suspicion genuinely exist. Overuse of the powers is as likely to be harmful to police effort in the long term as misuse; both can lead to mistrust of the police among sections of the community. It is also particularly important to ensure that any person searched is treated courteously and considerately if police action is not to be resented."
I come back to my intervention in the Minister's speech. We know that the Merseyside study showed that, out of 1,000 stop and searches, only 43 resulted in arrest. There are other figures from a number of studies round the country which show a very low level of arrest and, I guess, a lower level of convictions resulting from stop and search. We must, therefore, be very concerned about the effect on police and public relations.
Considering the events immediately preceding the troubles at the Broadwater Farm estate, we note that there were a very large number of stop and searches prior to the outbreak of that trouble. We cannot assume that there was no connection between the breakdown in confidence in the police by people in that area and those actions by the police. This is an important point to which we should all pay great attention.
Mr. Greg Knight: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully. Surely the notes for guidance, as he has quoted them, will help to prevent the recurrence of instances which he has given. Paragraph 1.2, in effect, says that the notes for guidance, although they are not part of the code, are there for the guidance of police officers and others about its application and interpretation. If in any ensuing court case there was an argument about whether the police were applying the code properly, lawyers would certainly refer to the notes for guidance, although it is accepted that they are not part of the code.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman's final words point to the problem. Many people are saying that in particular this note for guidance should be part of the code for precisely that reason. There is the lessening of civil rights in terms of the code and of the Act, whereas at the other end of the

495
scale there has been no lessening of the powers to detain and so on. That is what we mean when we say that the balance is not as it should be and, indeed, as recommended by many other groups as well as by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.
At one of the police conferences on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act earlier this year, one senior officer remarked:
"for instance, officers are required to give reasons for stopping people. But after a while, cases in court will establish acceptable phrases. And those reasons for stopping someone which are accepted in court will become the standard response."
Clearly there is an element of truth in that, but there are also dangers in it.
The percentage of stop and search leading to prosecutions, according to Home Office research, could have been as low as 4 per cent. in London and 1 per cent. elsewhere. It said:
"Black males aged 16–24 were likely to be stopped particularly frequently, it found."
The report concluded:
"Without a secure base of community support, the use of powers of this kind, however extensive or circumscribed, rapidly becomes hazardous and ineffective."
That must be of considerable concern to us. Where the codes have been implemented on an experimental basis in the London area, as I have indicated to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), we have seen that under pressure the safeguards go but the powers stay. If that continues when the Act comes into force on 1 January, the only thing that one can predict with any degree of certainty is that in certain key areas of our inner cities the relationship between the police and public will continue to decline, with all that that implies for the welfare of the community as a whole.
If I may take this a little further, the Minister will know that I tabled a series of written questions recently on the operation of the codes where they were being applied on an experimental basis. I asked how many people had been detained and how long it was before they were allowed to see a solicitor. The Minister replied:
"The information requested is not held centrally. On the basis of the information which is currently available, and whose accuracy cannot be completely guaranteed, we believe that six people were denied access to a solicitor for less than 24 hours, 14 for between 24 and 48 hours, and five for more than 48 hours. Access was denied because, in the opinion of the police, granting it would have caused unreasonable delay or hindrance to the conduct of the investigation. No further information is available."—[Official Report, 2 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 25.]
I am concerned that, unless the Minister is able to give us much tighter information on or after 1 January 1986, all the good intentions that he outlined in his speech about ensuring that the codes are examined as to the effectiveness with which they are carried out will come to nothing. Indeed, in reply to another written question, he said that the information was not available. It will be totally unacceptable to receive answers like that after 1 January because the Minister will not be able to carry out the commitment that he gave to the House to review the way that the code is working. We must have that information made available to us.
I turn next to some comments made by solicitors and lawyers who had some experience of the operation of the code during the troubles in Tottenham. I wish to make it clear that I refer to solicitors and lawyers who had
496
particular experience at that time. I want also to put on record that not only the people and residents of Broadwater Farm but the police were in something of a state of shock that night. That needs to be registered.
I have been told by solicitors that adults and juveniles alike have been held for long periods without seeing a solicitor. One 20-year-old was arrested on suspicion of having a forged tax disc. His mother and his solicitor were not allowed to see him throughout the 24 hours for which he was held. That was in direct contravention of section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
In another example, a 13-year-old boy was held for 55 hours, during which time a solicitor instructed by his mother was not allowed to see him. The solicitor reminded the police of the suspect's unqualified right to seek advice after 36 hours' detention. He was told that he was wasting his time.
Police involved in the Tottenham investigations have claimed the right to refuse to allow suspects to be represented by solicitors of their choice. Two firms of solicitors in north London have been told by the police that it would be improper for them to act. The explanation given by the police was that information might be passed on to other defendants represented by those firms.
The other side of the coin—it causes me some anxiety—is that evidence given confidentially to the Police Complaints Authority in the case of Mrs. Jarrett seems to have been given to police officers involved in the Tottenham cases. The Minister must surely be disturbed about that. There may well be an early-day motion about it. I know that the Police Complaints Authority is concerned. There is a two-edged problem to which attention must be given.
The police maintained their position even after the firms concerned told them that questions of professional responsibility are a matter for judgment by solicitors, who are subject to their own professional code. The firms also told the police that in their judgment no conflict of interest arose in the cases, so that, in the normal course of events, they should have been allowed to represent the people who sought their assistance.
One solicitor agreed to the remand of her client, who was a juvenile, into police custody for further interviews in her presence. When she arrived at the police station, as arranged, she was told that she would not, after all, be allowed to see her client or be present during the interview. Later, the police tried to persuade other firms of solicitors to take over the case, despite the fact that legal aid had been granted. The client had specifically asked for that solicitor to represent him, and the solicitor was certain that no conflict of interest would arise because of other cases in which her firm was involved. In effect, the police prevented her from carrying out the contractual and professional obligations owed to the client. The client's statutory right, under the legal aid legislation, to be represented by a solicitor of his choice was also violated.
The examples that I have given were supplied to me by solicitors, and they must give rise to concern. They are serious complaints by solicitors and other people in the legal profession in the north London area. I do not think that the Minister would want to accept those practices as the norm on or after 1 January 1986.
With regard to training, the Minister is well aware of the police concern about the complexity and bureaucratic nature of some of the rules and of the Act itself. I have long said that the amount of training given to the police needs

497
to be increased. The training offered to police officers is still inadequate, given the complex nature of their task. The police, who are not lawyers, are asked to interpret legislation in the course of their day-to-day duty, despite having had only minimum training. I understand that in some cases police have had only one day's training on the codes and the Act. That must be unacceptable.
The stop and search issue is important. It is crucial to policing by consent. One of the reasons why the Government are in such acute trouble on law and order is that they promised to deliver a "get tough" policy. They delivered such a policy, but it failed precisely because they took other actions which undermined the cohesion of the local community, certainly in the inner city areas. It was further undermined particularly by the effects of long-term youth unemployment. That aggravated the racial problem, because members of the black community suffer most from inner city decline and decay and from long-term youth unemployment. Linked to that is a loss of confidence in the police. When that occurs, we have the worst of all situations.
The police catch most of their criminals by relying on evidence given to them by the public. About 80 per cent. of their convictions are achieved in that way. If that source of information dries up, they will be forced to resort to practices such as stop and search and using sledgehammers to break down front doors to gain entry and look for people or evidence that may or may not be there. In those circumstances, the confidence of the community in the police will decline. In that respect the Government bear a dreadful responsibility. They, more than any other body, have been responsible for the complex and deadly combination of factors which have resulted in an escalating crime rate in the United Kingdom, together with inner city disturbances of a nature and intensity that Britain has not seen for 100 years. That is a damning indictment of Government policies.
The searching of premises has similar dangerous effects. In view of the evidence given at the Jarrett inquiry, which has just concluded, the Minister has a particular duty, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, on the matter of warrants. When I was a probation officer, I recall there was one court in which police officers would ask for 10 or 20 warrants, which would be issued en bloc. That cannot be an acceptable practice, and questions must be asked about the way in which warrants are being granted if we are to restore the good relationship between the police and the public. I understand that there was a study recently in the Criminal Law Review which concluded that magistrates exert very little control over the issue of warrants. That is borne out by my own experience in the past and by some of the evidence which has emerged in the Jarrett case.
With regard to entry and search, there seem to be double standards in operation. People who live in lodging houses seem to have less right to privacy than those who live in private houses, either rented or owner-occupied. The tenant in a lodging house must be allowed the same rights as an ordinary resident in rented or owner-occupied property. That is an extremely important matter.
Another area of concern is the functioning and financing of the codes. The Lord Chancellor seems to have become a sort of Home Secretary in exile. Everyone on the Government Benches seems to accept that the Lord Chancellor is going to retire, but between now and his
498
retirement he seems to be determined to do exactly what he likes. Indeed, he might even be a Prime Minister in exile. He seems to be very much a law unto himself.
I have a particular axe to grind in regard to law centres, which have been allowed to run down. They were one of the best legal developments under the Labour Government. They have been very useful in inner city areas and in the country generally. They have been undermined, and in many places closed down or threatened with closure.
As far as I can understand, duty solicitors working outside office hours will get enhanced rates of pay, but solicitors chosen by the defendant will be in a different position. Under the Act, a person held in a police station has a right to ask for a solicitor of his own choice. If he then chooses a solicitor in the middle of the night, that solicitor will not be paid the enhanced rate. The solicitor must be tempted to refuse to act, so the right to choose a solicitor no longer exists. The right is undermined by the lack of resources.
I was disturbed by the Minister's comment that the Government could not have an open-ended public expenditure programme. It is difficult to sustain the argument that a principle in law has been agreed, but that it cannot be afforded. Apparently, in other pans of the legal system cost is no object. The cost of prosecuting the Cyprus service men would almost pay for any scheme. I am far from happy about the matter, and believe that it should be reconsidered by the Government.
Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the truth were obtained in a police station because a man was properly advised, the cost of a subsequent abortive trial would be saved? For a few pence spent in time, many pounds would be saved.
Mr. Soley: I am always willing to listen to legal advice from many suitably qualified hon. Members, as long as I do not receive a bill afterwards. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I have a list of solicitors and barristers whom I would pay not to defend me. My hon. Friend is not on it.
Full advice is available only to those who are detained for arrestable offences, but £50 is the maximum available for non-arrestable offences. The most that a person who voluntarily goes to a police station on a non-arrestable offence will receive is £50. The going rate among solicitors is about £25 an hour—considerably more than I get—which would mean a maximum of two hours advice. After that time, the solicitor could presumably say "I am sorry, but I must leave now."
Mr. Bermingham: It includes travelling time.
Mr. Soley: I did not realise that. Therefore, it may be less than two hours before the solicitor leaves the police station.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is illogical to pay solicitors less money for dealing with non-arrestable offences? In many cases, non-arrestable offences are more complex than arrestable offences. A flat rate would be better.
Mr. Soley: I have benefited from some more free legal advice. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right.

499
What worries me more is the case of a person who is voluntarily or involuntarily at a police station on a non-arrestable offence, but who, after his solicitor leaves, is charged with an arrestable offence. There is nothing to stop that happening if the police decide that a more serious charge is appropriate.
An east London solicitor has given me an example. He states:
"A group of five youths were arrested for threatening behaviour. They were detained at the Police Station for a long time and interviewed. After the interviews had been concluded, they were charged not with threatening behaviour but with conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm. None of these youths would have been entitled to more than £50 worth of advice."
There is real anxiety that the Government are not putting their money where their mouth is. The previous Home Secretary said:
"We want a duty solicitor scheme that works, thereby showing in a practical way that the new safeguards in the Bill are not a paper exercise."
The Government have not lived up to that commitment.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I am conscious that I am trespassing on ground that is the province of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. Regarding the duty solicitor scheme, the figure of £50 was fixed after consultation between the Lord Chancellor and the Law Society, which believed it to be far and reasonable—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The figure provides for the standby payment of £30 for duty solicitors for a 12-hour period and an enhanced rate of pay of £36 an hour for work undertaken out of office hours or at weekends, which includes travelling time. If the work relates to non-arrestable offences, the rate will be £27 an hour. In addition, £10 will be paid for telephone calls through which legal advice is provided. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusions that the provisions are not fair and reasonable. They are based on pilot studies that were undertaken. However, this is one aspect of the Act that will be considered, when it is put into practice, to discover whether improvements are necessary.
Mr. Soley: According to my hon. Friends, the Law Society did not agree to the figures or, indeed, to the principle. The Law Society was unhappy about the way in which the principle had been formulated. The Minister cannot hide behind that argument. The Lord Chancellor is trying to keep the scheme down and the Treasury wishes to save public money, so the scheme has been cut. The previous Home Secretary gave a clear commitment in Committee that these would not be paper safeguards; but that is what they are. Unless the Government reverse the process, we shall be in difficulty when the Act comes into effect.
I return to the letter of the solicitor from east London who contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). He gave another example that causes concern. His letter states:
"In the past three weeks this firm have had two instances where they have been contacted, in one case by a wife and in the other by an employee, and requested to go to the Police Station, only to be told when we contacted the Police Station that there was nobody at the Police Station of the name that we requested. Subsequently, arrangements were made for someone from this office to go to the Police Station with a letter addressed to the detainee and a copy to the Custody Officer indicating that a call had been made to us and that we were available to attend at the Police Station for an interview. For reasons one can only
500
speculate on, within half an hour of the letter being delivered, the suspect was confirmed to be at the Police Station and permission was given for someone to be present at his interview."
I do not have the advantage of having served on the Committee, but my right hon. and hon. Friends who did were keen to press for the codes and they achieved several changes. However, the codes do not provide the proper balance between the rights of the suspect and police effectiveness, which is required to make matters clear to the public and the police. The codes are not a satisfactory response to a complicated Act that we believe has many undesirable aspects.
The already dangerously deteriorating relationship between the police and public will be made worse unless the Government do more to ensure that law centres and duty solicitors are financed and protected. The Government must ensure that the codes are adhered to and that police officers are given sufficient training so that we can begin the long hard road to regaining in key areas the support for the police that has been lost at a terrible cost to the community. That is a matter for which this Government bear a terrible responsibility.
8.19 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on producing simple codes of practice that can be understood by the general public.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hind: I shall complete my point and then I shall give way gladly to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The beauty of this document—
Mr. Carlile: Beauty?
Mr. Hind: —is that the man in the street can no longer say that the law is complex or that the document is written in legalese. He can go into any shop and buy this document, which will tell him precisely what his rights are when he enters a police station. This is a major development in police dealings with the general public.
Mr. Carlile: I agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, although I do not share his perception of beauty. He said that any member of the public could enter a shop and buy the document. Does he agree that £3 is an extraordinary price to pay for a document which, after all, simply sets out our rights in a police station? Does he not believe that it should be made available to the public at a substantially lower price?
Mr. Hind: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good point, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will bear it in mind.
An important effect of the codes of practice will be the necessary reorganisation of police training to meet their requirements. I hope that the Home Office realises the burdens that have been placed upon the police force when dealing with problems that arise from the codes of practice. They have tackled those problems manfully, and the Lancashire police force has informed me that it has been expensive to make police officers aware of the details of the document.
The document will be welcomed by the general public, not only because of its simplicity, but because it has strengthened some of the powers of the police and codified many of their common law powers. It has also translated them into simple terms which the public can understand. It has given the police more teeth when dealing with

501
criminals, and is clearly part of the Government's strategy to ensure a stronger and tougher approach to tackling crime.
The codes of practice reflect many of the lessons that were learnt in Scotland from a pilot scheme on stops and searches. That experiment revealed many offences that would not otherwise have been discovered, including the carrying of offensive weapons and the possession of drugs. I hope that the law will be applied strongly to football hooligans, who are mentioned in this document, and that the police can deal with them firmly but sensibly. The codes of practice will break down much of the aggression that occurs at football matches, which triggered the introduction of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985, following the riot at the European cup final in Brussels stadium.
One failing of the document is that it does not mention guns. Following the incident at Brixton, it is important that those whose premises are searched are aware that police officers are armed. In the light of what we know now, the tragic incident at Brixton might not have happened if those who owned the house had known that the police officers were armed. Those of us who are aware of the problems of Brixton and the difficulties of policing such an area will live to rue the day when that armed police officer entered the premises in the way that he did. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider including such a provision in the code of practice when it is reviewed in the light of experience.
Many solicitors have told me that the duty solicitor scheme is in many ways inadequate, especially in relation to summary offences. May I give an example? The solicitor's client may be interviewed by the police on the basis that he caused a death by reckless driving. However, subsequently, the police may consider that he committed a negligent act, so he will be charged with careless driving. That solicitor may spend hours in the police station on a serious matter, but he will not be remunerated in the way that he would expect for his hard work on such a serious offence. There are other examples. We know the difference between threatening behaviour under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936, which is a summary offence, and affray, which is an indictable offence that could have entirely different consequences. Perhaps my hon. Friend will confer with our right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor about those matters.
Mr. Greg Knight: Is it not true that if someone goes to a police station voluntarily to be interviewed about an arrestable offence, he is entitled only to the lower tier of legal aid? That is just as bad an example as the one my hon. Friend gave.
Mr. Hind: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is a good one. The codes of practice will ensure that all those involved—the police and every member of the general public in contact with the police—know their rights. Their aim is to safeguard everyone. We must ask ourselves whether, in terms of remuneration for the time expended and effort required by solicitors, we are adequately safeguarding the rights and interests of the public.
The most important aspect of the codes of practice is that a policeman may be disciplined for breaching them. The public will realise that any breach by a police officer can result in a complaints procedure under the authority of the Police Complaints Authority.
502
As a practitioner in the criminal courts for many years, I have been disturbed by the practice of recording interviews with defendants after the event. The practice leads to inaccuracy. Occasionally, juries have found that Enid Blyton had some hand in the writing of interviews after the event where dishonest police officers were involved. Such cases lead to suspicion in the public mind. I spent many years practising in Leeds, where there was the sad case of a man who died in custody, which resulted in the trial of several police officers. For many years that completely undermined public confidence in the police. A similar situation arose in Sheffield. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) is not in his place, but he will know of the famous rhino whip case in Sheffield, which had a similar effect upon juries there.
Paragraph 11.3 (b) (ii) of the codes of practice urges that a contemporaneous note should be made of interviews carried out in the police station. That is a major safeguard for the police in obtaining convictions in court, and for the defendant. In my experience, defendants are asked by the police to sign not only at the end of each page, but at the end of each answer, to show that what is written is correct. The interview is recorded as it takes place in front of those concerned. I think that I speak for most of my colleagues in the legal profession when I say that that strengthens the prosecution case a great deal. Wherever possible, that practice should be followed
"unless in the investigating officer's view this would not be practicable or would interfere with the conduct of the interview".
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way once again. Will he share with me the hope that as a result of the excellent provision in paragraph 11.3 (b) we shall not see what I understand has happened in some parts of Scotland—a sudden increase in the number of informal confessions made by accused persons while they are in a police car on the way to the police station?
Mr. Hind: I take that point. The proper course of action should be an interview at the police station. I hope that the police will bear that in mind. Obviously, a police officer faced with a man who insists on talking cannot ignore that. He must caution him and try as soon as possible when he gets to the police station to make a note of what was said. I am sure that such cases are rare. I have found in my practice that most of the time my clients are less than willing to spill out confessions of their evil deeds. That may be the experience of many of my hon. and learned Friends.
Tape recordings are dealt with in the codes of practice. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that tape recordings are becoming more widespread and are a matter of concern to many of those who appear in the courts. At the moment, solicitors are being given tapes where the most important matters relating to the offence are included within a large amount of conversation relating to the family and so on. No effort has been made in the Metropolitan police area to transcribe the recordings of such interviews and hand the transcripts with the tapes to the solicitor acting for the defence so that he may check them. Solicitors are asked to make their own transcripts. When my hon. Friend reviews the codes of practice, will he consider some system whereby we can avoid that and the problems of juries listening to a lot of irrelevant tape, which is a waste of the courts' time and money?

503
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which the codes of practice deal with medical matters. Today, many more people who come before the courts are victims of drug abuse. A frightening number of heroin addicts are appearing before the courts. Therefore, police officers frequently have to deal with people who are suffering from withdrawal symptoms. It is important that police officers should take every precaution to ensure that they know whether an accused person is withdrawing. What such people say in their confession is completely undermined. They will say anything to get out of the police station to receive a further dose, whether by injection or by smoking.
Recently, I heard of a man who had been in a police station for 44 hours, during which time he was seen by four doctors. After the 44 hours were up he admitted the offence about which he was being questioned and made a voluntary statement. The police officer who gave evidence in court about the interviews said that he was not aware that the man was a heroin addict. He was not even aware that he had been visited by doctors. Those are important problems which, unfortunately, the police are facing as a consequence of our modern society. I urge the most careful consideration of that matter. A doctor should be called at every opportunity to decide whether a person is fit to be interviewed.
It is my experience that doctors have gone into the witness box to give evidence and have said that they will not say that an accused is unfit to be interviewed unless that person is "very ill indeed". That is wrong. There are two levels of heroin abuse — physical and mental dependence. How does one diagnose a craving if a man has been given drugs to repress the physical symptoms of drug withdrawal? I hope that my hon. Friend will bear those factors in mind when he considers the matter.
I hope that the codes of practice will see the end of the witness who is told to wait on the corner and say whether he recognises a person who walks round the corner. Unfortunately, that happens all too often. In November I heard of a police officer who waited outside a police station for an accused person whom he had not seen for 10½ months to sign on. He knew that that person was coming and he was there to identify him. There was no identification parade. We must stop that sort of thing. The police must be aware of the identification parade provisions in the codes of practice. They are clear and concise.
I welcome the provision in paragraph 20, on page 89, which deals with the taking of photographs at identification parades. Those of us who have appeared on behalf of the defence or the prosecution in trials involving identification parades know that such photographs are valuable when criticisms are being made of a person's memory and ability to point to the appropriate person in a line up.
I thank my hon. Friend for making clear on pages 91 and 92 of the codes of practice the procedure for showing photographs to potential witnesses. That is a welcome change. Every accused person will know the position in relation to that.
The codes of practice are a major step forward. I hope that, because of my comments, my hon. Friend will not think that I do not regard the codes as a major contribution to our criminal law. I do so regard them, but we would be failing in our duty to the House if we did not say something
504
that would improve the situation. These codes of practice have already been put into operation in some police stations. Let us hope that they will improve the quality of our investigations and the rights of people in police stations.
8.39 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: As someone who bears the many scars of having served on the Standing Committee that dealt with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, I congratulate the two novices on the Front Benches who have entered into the fray like real professionals. Like many who served on the Standing Committee, they have endeavoured to ensure that what we produce are practicable and reasonable codes which provide sufficient powers for the police and adequate protection for the suspect.
This debate tolls the knell of the passing of the judges rules, a fact which can cause no regret to anyone who has experience of practising in the courts. The judges rules have been honoured in their breach rather than in their obeisance, they have become discredited, and the judges themselves have generally recognised that they are almost valueless. These codes, imperfect as they inevitably are—after all, they are the first attempt at this type of dramatic and comprehensive change in police practice—are bound to be a great improvement.
I applaud the spirit in which the Minister of State has welcomed the criticism that has been made so far in this debate, and I hope that in the future that same spirit will be reflected in the Government's willingness to amend the codes as exigencies arise. The first may well be in connection with the use of firearms by the police.
1986 will be a year of great challenge for the police, not least because they will find themselves charged with the responsibility of putting into effect their part of the obligations imposed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That Act contains many complexities that I know are unwelcome to the police. Indeed, police officers around the country say ruefully that the old-fashioned police sergeant, who in the past has been a somewhat homely creature, has had to take what amounts to a management course in order to perform the duties of the custody officer.
I know many police station sergeants, and have confidence in their ability to take on board the duties that are now imposed on them. I hope that all police officers will bear in mind the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who in Standing Committee said:
"The individual has his protection, which is that a code exists which those in authority are deemed to know and obliged to operate … and on which a court, if it accepts the contention and acts upon it, acquits." — [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 1 March 1984; c. 1582.]
I hope that all police officers will be reminded of those words, and that they will realise that the courts will take an extremely condign view of police officers and their conduct if they are in breach of the codes.
I also hope that the Minister of State did not think me frivolous when I mentioned the Welsh language in an intervention. It is the second great indigenous language of the United Kingdom. In Wales, 500,000 people are more comfortable speaking in Welsh than in English, and some would find it difficult to understand even a simply drawn code such as this were it written only in English. I hope that in Wales there will be Welsh translations of the whole

505
of the code so that those who are more comfortable in the Welsh language can follow the code in their indigenous language.
I emphasise the point that I made in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I suggested that the price of the code—£3 for the draft — is rather high. I was pleased when the hon. Gentleman agreed with me, and I hope that the Government will feel that a document such as this should be available to the public at half that price.
There are certain particular aspects of the codes with which I am not entirely happy, and I ask the Minister of State to consider the points that I shall now make and to consider possible future amendments. There is some evidence, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) in some detail, that in the aftermath of the Tottenham riots police officers under pressure — and one understands the effect of that pressure—tended to be less careful than they should have been of the safeguards that should have been given to suspects. In the context of an inadequately funded duty solicitor scheme — experience will show, as the Law Society has submitted, that it is substantially underfunded—it is important that the code should be enforced by police officers, whatever the situation or pressure.
My general criticism of the codes is that they contain insufficient requirements for suspects to be informed of their right to be silent, of the limitation on police powers contained in the codes, and matters of that sort. On stop and search, paragraph 3A on page 16 states, inter alia, that
"although there is no power to require a person to do so, there is nothing to prevent an officer from asking a person voluntarily to remove more than an outer coat, jacket or gloves in public."
It is all very well to state that, but neither the code nor the guidance notes require the police officer concerned to tell the member of the public that he or she is under no obligation to remove outer clothing other than a coat, jacket or gloves. If we are to maintain the spirit, expressed elsewhere in the codes, of good community relations in police work, it is important that people have the right to be informed. Indeed, an obligation should be imposed on the police by the codes to inform people of the limitations on police power.
Paragraph 2.2 on page 14 entitles a police officer, before carrying out a search under the stop and search procedure, to question a person
"about his behaviour or his presence in circumstances which gave rise to the suspicion";
and the suspicion referred to is the reasonable suspicion that entitles the officer to carry out the stopping and searching. If the officer has a reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop the person concerned, if he has the reasonable suspicion to entitle him to carry out the search, and if he feels it right to question the person about his behaviour or presence in circumstances that give rise to that reasonable suspicion, he surely has the time to caution the suspect and he should be obliged to do so.
It is therefore a regrettable lacuna in the stop and search code that, in the action required before a search is carried out and where questioning takes place, a caution is not also required. I draw to the Minister's attention an important and particular concern highlighted by paragraph 4.4, which deals with the records that an officer is required to keep when carrying out the stop and search procedure. He
506
should normally seek the name, address and date of birth of the person searched, although the person searched has no obligation to give them.
I was encouraged, at a luncheon in the City of London a few days ago, to hear the Home Secretary make the clear and unequivocal statement that he does not believe in a national police force, which he thought would be a backward step. Like him, I recognise that one must allow a considerable amount of organisational autonomy to the individual police forces. Nevertheless, it is clearly the duty of the Home Secretary to ensure that the use made of records obtained during stop and search procedures, as set out in paragraph 4.4, is a proper one.
In the Suffolk police computer system, a person who has been stopped and searched three times within the county, which, after all, could be three visits to a match between Ipswich Town and Norwich City, if he can bear to go to such a match as often as three times, is then starred on the computer as a suspected person, although he is not suspected of any offence. The wholesale gathering of not only names and addresses, but dates of birth seems to be of more use in widespread information gathering than in dealing with any specific offences or suspicions.
It is vital that any records obtained in stop and search procedures should be used only for the purposes of stop and search procedures and not for more widespread information gathering purposes. Will the Minister give an undertaking that records of stops and searches will be destroyed after the relevant period and will not be used as general police intelligence information?
Mr. Soley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important point. Is not his point even more important when we bear in mind that there is evidence to suggest that people who work shift work and travel during the night or the early hours of the morning are more likely to be stopped, and are stopped on a number of occasions?
Mr. Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I recall many years ago cross-examining a police officer in a drunk driving case in a Welsh rural county—not mine—who confessed to me that life was so boring sitting in a police car at night that he stopped every car that went past. While that may be an extreme example, there is a risk of such behaviour being repeated. Therefore, it is crucial that the information obtained should be used properly.
I deal now with the code concerned with the search of premises and the seizure of property. I made my point in an intervention in the Minister's speech, but I re-emphasise it. It is crucial that whatever instructions are given to the police should be reinforced in the instructions to magistrates. Most magistrates are careful and competent. But we must not mince our words: some are sloppy and incompetent. We must ensure that such magistrates who are prepared to act merely as a rubber stamp because the law requires search warrants are not permitted to do so in the future, particularly as a magistrate issuing a search warrant and dealing with considerations such as whether notice of a search is to be given to the person who is to be searched and having to consider points such as "disproportionate inconvenience"—one of the least beautiful phrases in the codes—must have a clear understanding of what is being asked for and what is required.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith about the guidance 4A in the code dealing with searching premises and seizing property which states:

507
"In the case of a lodging house or similar accommodation a search should not be made on the basis solely of the landlord's consent unless the tenant is unavailable and the matter is urgent."
I do not suppose that the club in Pall Mall in which I live during the week when the House is sitting would take too kindly to being called a boarding house, but it could be described, at a stretch of the imagination, as "similar accommodation". It is wrong that those of us who stay in clubs such as mine should have a lower standard applied to them in the code than those living in their own homes. This is a serious point, which applies to the many young people in particular who not only live in lodging houses but now, it would appear, will be forced by the Government's policy on bed and breakfast accommodation to lead a nomadic existence, travelling every few months from one lodging house to another.
Paragraph 3.1 on the code of questioning and detention sets out a right for a person who has been detained to consult
"this and the other codes of practice."
I hope that the Minister will ensure that this is so and that suspects who ask to see the codes of practice and who, I hope, will be told of their availability will be given the time to read them. It is no use simply being shown a pretty book with a red cover if one is not given the opportunity to find out what one's rights are. I counsel that police officers be encouraged to show some patience towards those members of the public who wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to read about what their rights are.
Mr. David Ashby: Rather than having the code of practice, should there not be five, easily understood points about rights to solicitors and so on?
Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience in dealing with the technical matters in the courts. It is highly desirable that a simple summary of the main rights be available, although I emphasise that when people in custody ask for the code, as they are entitled to do under this provision, they should be given enough time to read the relevant parts.
I feel some confidence—at least a hope—that on the basis of what we have heard from the Minister the Government will scrutinise closely the operation of the codes. I hope that chief constables will be told by the Government of the importance of punishing breaches of the codes in disciplinary proceedings, particularly in cases in which, in the courts of England and Wales, judges have been faced with difficult evidential problems because of breaches of the codes by police officers. We know—because we are practical people, I hope—that police officers will breach the codes from time to time. Some of the breaches will be trivial, and perhaps we should not take too serious a view of them. But when breaches are significant, particularly when they affect the outcome of a case, the result of disciplinary proceedings should be serious in its consequences for the police officers concerned.
In welcoming the codes on their way into the police stations of this land, I ask the Minister of State to consider seriously the possibility of providing in Government time in the not-too-distant-future a further opportunity for debate so that once again we may scrutinise the codes not as to how we feel they ought to work, but as to how they are working in practice.
8.59 pm
Sir John Farr: Like all the other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, I welcome the codes. Many of my constituents will be reassured by having the right of access to the codes when they reach the statute book on 1 January 1986. I say that advisedly. When I have visited youth clubs and other clubs in my constituency, I have been surprised by the number of times, for well over a year now, that people have said to me that it would be a great help if there were police codes of practice. We have such codes now.
The codes are complex, and there are four of them. Reference has been made to the fact that their cost—£3—will be a drawback. I strongly urge the Government to divide the book into four and to make the codes separately available, free of charge, to any member of the public who wants them. They should be made available, free of charge, in every police station in the country from 1 January 1986. That would be a very good investment, and the Government would go a long way towards restoring confidence in the police and in the way that criminal matters are dealt with in Britain.
I wish to raise two points on the codes. The first point relates to something which they do not contain, but which my hon. Friend the Minister of State ought to think of including. Paragraph 17 of code C deals with the charging of detained persons. There are one or two serious omissions. No mention is made of recording an interview on a tape or by other magnetic means. That ought to be done automatically, wherever possible. I refer in particular to paragraph 17.1, which deals with a prisoner who is about to be charged with a serious offence. He should be photographed when he enters police custody. A photograph of his condition when he enters the police station should automatically be taken. It may be difficult to put this into effect, but it is particularly important if a vicious crime has been committed and public feeling is running high.
It would be in the interests of the police if a photograph were taken to show the physical, external condition of a suspect who is brought to the police station on a grave charge. There would then not be the incident of the kind that occurred at the time of the pub bombing in Birmingham a few years ago. Photographs were not taken until 54 hours after the suspects had entered police custody. It was impossible to compare their condition then with their condition when they were taken into police custody, because no photographic record was made at that time. When major charges are laid, the police would be safeguarded if a photographic record were kept of the condition of suspects when they entered police custody.
My second point, on which many hon. Members have touched, relates to the omission from the codes of the conduct of the police in the use, issuing and handling of firearms. My hon. Friend said that the matter was being given urgent attention, but the country demands today nothing less of him than another code of practice which relates entirely to that matter. Recently, so many mistakes have been made by the police in matters in which they have been trained that in some cases, where the police are known to be armed, ordinary people run for their lives. I shall not go into these cases in great detail, but not so long ago in the west end of London armed police fired and injured the wrong person without making any proper challenge. There is also the sad case of the police officer

509
who entered a house with a search warrant and was armed with a cocked handgun which he set on the edge of a child's cot, with subsequent fatal results.
The matters about which the public should know should be laid down in a code of conduct for the House to debate. They should include not only the conditions in which one would expect the police to be armed and the eventualities for which the police should be prepared, but the type and calibre of weapon to be used, the type of training that officers must receive before they are allowed to use the weapons in public and, more important, instructions in the handling of a firearm by a trained police officer, whether or not someone is suspected of having committed a crime.
Hon. Members have already said that a warrant must be issued by a magistrates court for a house to be searched. In recent months public happenings have made a strong case for saying that unless there is an emergency the police should obtain a warrant before they are allowed to arm themselves and go among the public.
Generally I welcome the codes, and I hope that my hon. Friend will seriously consider making them widely available, because they will be a popular document for general use.
9.7 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): I shall begin by drawing the Minister's attention to one of my interventions in his opening speech which he misunderstood. He may recall that I intervened regarding persons who enter a police station voluntarily. I drew a contrast between the rights of the voluntary attender and those of the detained person. The rights of the detained person are safeguarded by the custody officer, but the rights of the voluntary attender, which are referred to on page 38 of the draft codes, are protected by nobody. The draft codes merely state that he must be shown the same kindness and courtesy and have the same facilities extended to him, until he becomes a detained person, when he goes into the care of a custody officer. I suggested that we might overcome the hiatus, which could give rise to arguments in the court room later, which is what we are seeking to avoid, by saying that when a person voluntarily attends a police station the custody officer shall seek to ensure that his rights are maintained.
I served on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill Committee, with its 159 sittings. The object of the exercise was to try, whenever possible, to improve the Bill. Efforts were made by all those hon. Members who served on the Committee to see whether that could be achieved. I ask the Minister to take on board the point that I have made, which is made in a spirit of helpfulness rather than confrontation.
In Committee, I moved a number of amendments, in particular, with regard to the rights and duties of the custody officer and the rights of prisoners. Although I now practise as a barrister, for many years I was a practising solicitor and I spent many a long hour in police stations.
I intend to return to the point that I mentioned during my intervention about the duty solicitor scheme. Standing, as it were, one removed from the scheme, I can perhaps say some of the things that solicitors might not want to say for fear of being thought to be trying to forward their own interests. There is much merit in the duty solicitor scheme.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made a valid and valuable point when he suggested that a synopsis of the codes of practice should be given to
510
the prisoner or the detained person at the moment of detention. It is not beyond the wit of man to provide a simple leaflet printed in large print. Some people have difficulty in reading. Many of the people who find themselves detained in police stations are not just nervous and frightened; they occasionally have some educational difficulties. The codes of practice are contained in the type of book that one would expect to read at one's leisure. Its contents can be condensed into five or six simple headings such as, "You have the right to remain silent", "You have the right to consult a solicitor", "The custody officer is in charge of you", or "You cannot be detained for more than 24 hours without x, y or z happening."
The Americans have an expression about reading a person his rights. The English have always seemed reluctant to do that. I have never understood why. We should consider the result. Games can be played in police stations to see whether people can be tricked into confessions. They are occasionally frightened into doing so. No one admires such evidence. When it is analysed later in a court, it only sours the relationship between the public and the police and destroys much of the good work that police officers have done over many years.
It is to avoid such problems that many of us have pressed for a considerable time for a detained person's rights to be protected. The codes of practice are perhaps a first step along the long road towards achieving a sensible system which will remove investigation from interrogation and towards evidence.
No one can argue with evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. I shall repeat what I said in Committee. The finest case that can ever be brought by the prosecution is one that does not rely for its evidence or one ounce of its strength upon an interview in a police station. The evidence speaks for itself. That is a proper case.
We became lazy in the 1960s and 1970s and moved away from gathering evidence towards the interrogative type of investigation — "Get a confession; get an admission." We had arguments in the 1970s about verhals. "He verballed me up, guv"—the classic defence that every lawyer has heard.
Solicitors tried to move away from that and we adopted the practice of contemporaneous notes. Now we are moving towards tape recordings. Eventually, I hope, we shall move back to obtaining evidence, which will shorten many criminal trials in this country.
That is one of the reasons why the Treasury ought to stop doing its figures. I have said in Standing Committee and in the Chamber on numerous occasions that if one wants to mess something up, one need only let the Treasury get its hands on it. Basically, the Treasury does not understand anything. I suspect that whoever in the Treasury advised the Lord Chancellor's Department about the duty solicitor scheme did not have a clue what he or she was talking about. The Treasury does not seem to appreciate that the presence of a solicitor at a police station can be a good thing. It can shorten the time of interview, reduce the amount of unpleasantness in the case and very often, because proper advice is given, get the right result at an early stage.
In the face of all that, the Treasury can say. "If you work unsocial hours and the offence is not an arrestable one we shall limit payment to £50". The Law Society does not agree, and it has the advantage that the people on its

511
committees have actually done the job. They have turned out in the middle of the night and they know the difficulties that can arise.
Mr. Ashby: The allowance of only two hours under the legal aid scheme for duty solicitors may be wholly inappropriate in certain circumstances. It is absolutely ludicrous and totally misunderstands the true position. The whole problem has been caused by people who have no idea about what really happens.
Mr. Bermingham: I have practical and personal experience of yesteryear when I was a solicitor. I was called out at night to go to police stations on numerous occasions, as were my staff and partners. I was fortunate enough to practise in a city with only four or five police stations, all of which were within 10 or 20 minutes' drive from my house. If someone were arrested at Rotherham, 12 or 13 miles from the solicitor's home—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know the area as well as I do—the travelling time may be half an hour. There is always a delay at the police station before one sees the client. In the early hours of the morning there seem to be interminable reasons for delay. That may not be due to nastiness. I always try to be kind and put it down to forgetfulness on the part of the officer, but very often police officers do not want a solicitor to see the client. One eventually gets to meet the client about an hour after starting out. If there is a limit of two hours in cost and credit time, the actual time spent with the client will be only half an hour.
In reality, solicitors always stay, regardless of what they are paid. That is said to be a weakness on the part of solicitors, but I believe that it is a great credit to the profession. I recall an occasion when a man voluntarily went to a police station in Birmingham with his solicitor. The solicitor was with him at the police station for 12 hours. Under the new scheme the solicitor would be paid only £50. The profession is an honourable one and it is not given proper and due credit for that. Solicitors have always been a target for criticism.
Mr. Ashby: And banisters.
Mr. Bermingham: Indeed. I was about to say that the other branch of the profession has also been a target.
It is an honourable profession, and solicitors will stay with their clients. It is disgraceful that undertakings given in good faith are now being dishonoured because of advice given in other quarters by people who do not know what they are talking about.
A 24-hour duty solicitor scheme means solicitors being prepared to turn out at 3, 4 or 5 o'clock on a Sunday morning, to drop their family plans for the weekend and to disrupt their social life because police stations must be covered 24 hours a day. We are asking a great deal of those solicitors, but we are offering them very little in return. The Treasury and the Lord Chancellor's Department then decide that £X is sufficient and the popular press goes on about how much the solicitors are earning. Solicitors have overheads——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I find it difficult to see what solicitors' remuneration has to do with the codes before us.
Mr. Bermingham: The codes refer to the right of access to lawyers, and a duty solicitor scheme is very
512
much part of the package. Accordingly, the terms and conditions of that duty solicitor scheme must perforce be part of the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is about the codes of practice. I see none of those matters in the codes of practice.
Mr. Bermingham: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the matter is dealt with in paragraphs 3.1 and 6 of section C of the code. Paragraph 3.1 on page 40 provides that when a person is at a police station
"having attended there voluntarily, the custody officer must inform him of the following rights … the right to consult a solicitor in accordance with section 6 below".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The remuneration of solicitors is not mentioned in paragraph 3.1 or, so far as I can see, anywhere else in the codes of practice. I think that the hon. Gentleman should pursue that matter at some other time.
Mr. Bermingham: This is probably the only opportunity that we shall have to pursue it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I appreciate that the Chair rules and I must obey. However, I think that the point has been made. I hope that the Minister will take it on board as it is a serious professional matter.
We are for ever driven back to the purpose behind the code of practice, which is to give people the right of access to a solicitor. One of the holes in the code is perhaps that there are still occasions on which such access can be denied. I have conceded that grave and serious matters must be involved which may later be challenged in the court, but I have never understood the reluctance of police officers to allow a defendant to take legal advice. Of course, there are safeguards for rare or exceptional circumstances, but, just as the judges rules were honoured more in the breach than in the observance, I hope that with regard to the right of access to a lawyer the courts will in future take a far sterner and more robust view of cases in which access has been denied.
In the past, prosecutions have often attempted to justify such denial with post-hindsight arguments. Why have certain police officers in this country found it necessary to take that attitude? What are they frightened of? That is the real question. If the evidence is strong, they have nothing to hide, so why deny the client access to a lawyer?
There are various other aspects of the codes of practice that one could pursue, but I ask the Minister to consider the central point: that if justice is to be even-handed and fair, if we are to avoid cases like the Confait case and if we are to get rid of the long and tedious court room arguments about what was said at one interview or another and the slanging matches about alleged pressure and bullying, the code of conduct at interviews and in police stations must be fair and it must be seen to be fair.
The codes of conduct are a step towards that, if they are enforced, and we have the assurance that they will be. I have listened to that assurance, but I hope that hon. Members will be able to review the matter from time to time. I await with interest to see where there are breaches of the codes and what actually happens. Will the codes have the teeth that they are said to have? I am not yet convinced. Perhaps I am by nature cynical or I have had too many years of watching what has happened to be converted overnight like St. Paul on the road to Damascus.
A step has been taken, and I shall watch with interest what happens. I ask the Minister for an assurance that

513
these matters will be reviewed openly from time to time and that, where errors and mistakes are found, rectification will be not some time in the future but immediate, so that in our court rooms trials become trials based on evidence and not, as happens on many occasions, personalities.
9.26 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: Those of us who are involved professionally with police powers have known for many years that they are confusing and haphazard. For example, the police had the power to stop and search for stolen goods in some cities, but not in others. One particularly outrageous example was that they could obtain a search warrant to look for birds' eggs, but not for a murder weapon. Anyone who realised the inconsistencies would agree that something needed to be done to codify and improve the law.
I hope that no one in the House will object to the introduction of these codes or mourn the passing of the judges rules. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, quite rightly, that the judges rules were outdated. They were also ignored in many instances. If a suspect knew that they existed and asked a police officer for a copy of them, the police officer would regard that as something of a joke.
Paragraph 1 of the code is a vast improvement because it makes it clear that the codes will be made available at police stations for use not only by the police but, where requested, by a suspect. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) when he asked whether it would be possible for a brief resumé of the codes to be printed and made available at police stations free of charge. Comment has been made about reducing the price of the codes. Perhaps a compromise would be to produce an abridged version of the codes and make that available free of charge.
Many hon. Members have rightly expressed their concern about abuse. We all know that abuse has occurred under our present law. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said that he did not like cases in which the police based their evidence on a confession. Unfortunately—I hope that he will agree with me—in the great majority of cases that come before the courts the evidence that tilts the scales, and in some cases the only evidence, is a confession. I have been concerned for many years about the undue pressure that can be put on a suspect to get him to confess to a crime that he may not have committed. That pressure is likely to be most severe in the cases where the suspect needs help and guidance the most.
Let me give an example. Very often—I say that with regret, but I am afraid that it happens very often—a police officer will refuse a telephone call to a suspect, make a threat or say that the suspect will not be given bail until he has made a confession, or say that a more serious charge will be preferred unless a confession is made. That usually happens when the police officer knows that the suspect has previous convictions. The relevance of that is that when the case comes to court, if the accused person seeks to tell the court the truth—that he was put under that pressure and made the confession just to get out of the police station—that is regarded as an attack on the character of the police. Therefore, the tribunal is made aware before it has determined his innocence or guilt that he had previously come to the notice of the police. In those circumstances, how is he to get a fair trial?
514
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery suggested that we should look at codes of practice for magistrates. I have some sympathy with him in that argument. I may be paraphrasing, but in a well-known case a magistrate announced in open court, "In this case there is a conflict between the police evidence and the evidence given by the defence, and in such a case we always prefer the evidence of the police." That case went to appeal, and the conviction was rightly quashed. In how many cases does the chairman of the bench think that but does not say it? It is important to ensure not only that the police follow the guidelines but that proper training and guidelines are given to magistrates.
I agreed with many of the comments by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), although he got carried away by his rhetoric when he ventured on to our inner city problems. At one stage in his speech I wondered whether he was considering a career in the Church—
Mr. Soley: They would not want me—they are all Marxists.
Mr. Knight: I am glad to hear the comments of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.
The hon. Gentleman said that in many cases the police obtained their evidence as a result of help from the public. He was right. He was also right in saying that, because of that, the police rely on the public for their detection work or at least for help in putting together a case. The relevance of that to the codes is that the good police officer, who wants to get results and is willing—most are—to play the game by the rules, will see that there is a benefit to be obtained by the police in getting the confidence of the public, not alienating the public.
Some would say that the safeguards were not adequate in the past, but new safeguards are now introduced with those new codes. For example, a new independent Police Complaints Authority has been set up and a statutory duty has been imposed on all police forces to set up proper consultative arrangements with representatives of local communities. I hope that those two items will help the police to gain and retain the confidence of the public in many areas.
Concern has been expressed about the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme. I note the comments that you made earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point which I wish to make, and which I thought the hon. Member for St. Helens, South was making, is that if the codes give an accused person the right to consult a solicitor, it is valueless if no solicitor is prepared to come out because he is not being paid sufficient remuneration to undertake the work required of him. Concern has been expressed in my branch of the profession about the arrangements that the Lord Chancellor has said will apply to fees to enable solicitors to give advice under the codes. I think that that was the relevance of the point which the hon. Member for St. Helens, South made.
I received a letter only this week from the secretary of the contentious business sub-committee of the Derby law society, Mr. Peter Ashworth, who is a respected local advocate in Derby. He expresses concern and the concern of solicitors in Derby about the operation of the 24-hour scheme. In his letter he says:
"As you know, in Derby there has been a Duty Solicitor Scheme in operation now for some time at the Derby city Magistrates court. This has proved to be a great help to those people who are bewildered and concerned about their problems …".
He goes on to say:

515
"it is hoped that a 24 hour Duty Solicitor Scheme will be mounted in Derby and district. Obviously, this will be of public benefit. However, there are grave misgivings about the way in which this scheme has been constrained by the Government and there are some areas where I believe it will not be possible for it to commence operation."
That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, subject to your view on the matter, is the relevance of the comments about remuneration in the draft codes that we are considering. I emphasise the point which the hon. Member for St. Helens, South made and, as I understand it, these arrangements were made without prior consultation with the Law Society. If there was consultation, there was certainly no agreement on how the scheme should be implemented.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was consultation with the Law Society but that the the Law Society made strong representations and did not agree with the scheme that has been imposed upon it?
Mr. Knight: That may be the case, but I shall be happy to accept the comments that my hon. Friend the Minister will make in reply. According to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, there was consultation but no consensus. There was no consensus over the introduction of this two-tier scheme. Concern has been expressed about the lower tier, although no one suggests that the entire scheme will be inoperable. However, I have misgivings concerning the lower tier and how it will operate.
I thought—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the £50 limit included solicitors' travelling time. In tests carried out by the Law Society it has been shown that on average 30 or 40 minutes is used as travelling time in each direction. If this is not so, I would welcome a denial from my hon. Friend the Minister.
Justice in society can be achieved only by striking the correct balance between the power given to the police and the rights of the individual. Despite my slight misgivings, I believe that these codes get the balance right and I wish them success.
9.38 pm
Mr. David Ashby: I apologise to the House for not being present for all of the debate, but I had a constituency problem to attend to.
I have listened with great interest to the debate and everything that I have heard has been sensible. I welcome these codes, just as I welcome increasingly the Police and Evidence Act 1984 and the improvements which have come with its implementation. I was most unhappy about the 96-hour provision. The Act has much that is good about it, and the same can be said for the codes. I am confident that the codes will bring dignity and sense to policing and to the courts, which we have not had so far. Other countries have enjoyed those things, but unfortunately we have not.
I hope that the days are gone of solicitors being involved in ignominous run arounds. All too often solicitors telephone a police officer, only to be told that he is not available, or that a message will be passed to him. Unfortunately, in many instances the solicitor's message is not conveyed. I have been involved in a case for about five weeks, during which examples of lack of contact between solicitors and police officers have come to light.
516
It is awful to think of solicitors travelling from London to Nottingham and being unable to see their clients. In many instances they have been told that they would be able to see them, but on arrival are told that that is not possible. The solicitor takes a train back to London, and during the journey his client may well appear before the court. That happens frequently, and the codes, if they are properly implemented, will stop it. They will bring back dignity and confidence to the police. In that sense, we are doing much for law and order. That can be said for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and for the codes of conduct.
The police depend upon the public, and it is unfortunate that they have forgotten that at times. They must remember that they will not be able to achieve what they want without the confidence and support of the public. Their detection rates will not increase without that support. We must give the public confidence in the police, by means of the codes. They will be a most valuable addition to the current framework and we must respond to them positively. Let us adopt them with enthusiasm and ensure that they are followed and implemented. There is a great future for law, order and justice if we follow the codes.
I cannot wait for the introduction of tape recorded interviews. Those of us who have been involved in cases where tape recordings have been used know that they have been enormously successful. Some cases which ran for five weeks and cost many thousands of pounds could have been disposed of in three days if tape recordings had been available. The savings involved in disposing in three days of a case which would otherwise run for five weeks would pay for the tape recording of all the interviews that have taken place in south-east England during the past year. On that basis, why were tape recordings not introduced 10 years ago?
If a system of tape recording is implemented properly, an enormous amount of court time will be saved. An enormous sum is being spent on the building of courts and the appointing of extra judges, but the new courts and the newly appointed judges could become superfluous once we begin to record interviews. There have been 10-week trials involving enormous numbers of exchanges such as "He said that," "No he did not," "Yes, he did," "No, he did not." That will disappear. The interviews will be recorded on tape and, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, we shall be looking for proper detective work. There will be proper interrogations and proper admissions in which everyone will have confidence. Jurors will be able properly to convict or otherwise.
A case at the Old Bailey came to an end recenty after running for an enormously long time. It would have been marvellous if the interviews in that case had been recorded on tape. I believe that the case lasted for four months. It would probably have lasted for a week if the interrogations had been recorded on tape.
I apologise to the House for intervening at a late stage in the debate. However, I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to introduce the tape recording of interviews and interrogations. Codes of conduct are fine, but for goodness sake let us have tape recordings. My hon. Friend will be surprised at the money that will be saved by their introduction. I cannot understand why the Treasury has not been insistent that tape recordings should be used. There will be enormous savings in both time and money, and justice will benefit accordingly.
9.44 pm
Mr. Giles Shaw: The refreshing intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has given me a sudden thirst for the economies of scale of tape recording. However, I have to remind myself that I must equip every police station with an appropriate room which is sound proofed and generally appropriate to the purpose for which it must be used.Nevertheless, I welcome the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend, and I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shares his view. Indeed, we shall be starting to extend gradually from the trial areas in which tape recorders have been used.
The subject of tape recording was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friends the Members for Leicestershire, North-West and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). A further code of practice will, of course, be laid before the House in accordance with the provisions of section 60 which require the Secretary of State
"(a) to issue a code of practice in connection with the tape-recording of interviews of persons"
and
"(b) to make an order requiring the tape-recording of interviews of persons".
I hope that that will not be too long delayed. Indeed, I trust that it will make its appearance in the course of next year.
Sir John Farr: Will the new code also include the provision of video recorders?
Mr. Shaw: That has not been part of the experimentation which we have undertaken with tape recording. I take my hon. Friend's point that that is yet another useful technological development. In so far as we are wishing primarily to deal with evidence which has been recorded and which can be understood and transmitted, I think that the video recorder is, in a sense, an excessive development. Let us watch the way in which these technologies are evolved in court cases and review the matter in due course.
I sound one note of caution regarding the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West to the transcripts of tape recording. The joyous economy which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West rightly seized in the matter of tape recording would fairly rapidly disappear if every tape recording had to be fully transcribed. I am sure that those of my hon. Friends who are lawyers will readily recognise that armfuls of printouts would not be the way to proceed if they and the Government wished to simplify the matter and reduce the cost of court proceedings. I do not, therefore, welcome the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West that there should be provision for the supply of transcripts.
Mr. Ashby: I am convinced from cases I have done myself in which there have been tape recordings that it is totally unnecessary to have a full transcript of the tape recording. It is necessary only to have the tape recording available to be heard. It is necessary to have transcribed only the choice parts which are the admissions.
Mr. Shaw: I am delighted to have that support from my hon. Friend. No doubt all good members of the Law Society will take note of the way my hon. Friend puts his point, because this matter will doubtless cause concern to lawyers at some stage.
518
I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I understood his point about the increased bureaucracy which is inherent in the Act and not only in the codes of practice. With regard to training, I think that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that there was rather slender training, but I can reassure him that substantial training is involved. Every officer has been through a course which lasts for almost a fortnight for those involved in sergeant's training and almost three days for those involved in constable's training to ensure that there is a working understanding of what is required when the Act becomes fully operational on 1 January next year.
I accept that the anxiety is one that forces face in relation to the controls imposed, the keeping of records and the bureaucratic elements within the legislation. In particular, the role of the custody sergeant to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be crucial. The maintenance of duties of the custody sergeant and the record of how he deals with the persons in his care are also crucial to the rights of the suspect which have been such a feature of the debate. This is a matter with which many forces have now experimented and those that I have visited are of the opinion that the Act in action is somewhat less formidable than the Act in prospect. I sincerely hope that that opinion will come to be shared generally.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the PSI report in relation to stop and search powers. My understanding is that the report accepted that stop and search powers were of use in the detection of offences and that they should not be withdrawn but be proceeded with. I think that the concern was that there would be a need for safeguards to ensure adequate supervision of the exercise of the power. That is what the codes are, setting out to achieve, and. I hope that that will be the case in practice.
When the hon. Gentleman referred to lodging houses, I think that he had in mind note 4A on page 27 of the code. I am a little concerned that he should interpret it in the way that he did, suggesting that lodging houses were dealt with differently. The note for guidance says:
"In the case of a lodging house or similar accommodation a search should not be made on the basis solely of a landlord's consent".
That is trying to protect the tenant's right to determine access to his flat rather than the right of the landlord, which is so frequently the case at present. I hope that there will be a slightly greater protection of the tenant, which I think the hon. Gentleman had in mind. There is still the provision that, if the tenant is unavailable and the matter is urgent, the police may rely only on the landlord's consent. The intention, however, is to offer greater protection from entry to the tenant's property, so that it shall not be simply on the say-so of the landlord.
Mr. Soley: Surely the point is that if the tenant is not available the entry should be effected only when the police have a warrant, and not on the say-so of somebody else.
Mr. Shaw: I accept that. The question is one of search with consent, and whether the urgency of the matter overlies the requirement of consent. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and obviously in practice we shall have to see how it is carried out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West raised several points, and I have dealt with the use of tape recordings. I welcome his comments on the language used in the codes. We have tried hard to adopt language which can be widely used.

519
In an intervention when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was speaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West suggested that there should be a simplified leaflet setting out the main conditions. Provision is made in the code for the suspect's rights to be drawn to his attention. At paragraph 3.2 on page 40, it says:
"The custody officer must give the person a written notice setting out the above three rights".
That refers to the right to have someone informed, the right to consult a solicitor, and the right to consult the code of practice. There is also a right to a copy of the custody record in accordance with the proceedings set out in paragraph 2.4. That will go some way towards making provision for a simplified version of the code to be drawn to the attention of all suspects. I hope that it will meet with the approval of those who have raised the point.
The four basic rights—to be set out in a leaflet handed to the suspect—would be the right to have someone informed, the right to legal advice, the right to a copy of the code of practice and the right to a copy of the custody record.
Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps in one of the Home Office directions this suggestion could be made to police forces, and that might put the matter in motion. If the leaflet could be handed to the person at the time when he signed the detained person's sheet, the problem would be covered.
Mr. Shaw: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's sensible suggestion and will see that that is done in relation to police practice.
The provision that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West suggested—to have a simplified or shortened leaflet setting out the rights of the individual—will be met. I emphasise that the codes of practice, whether they cost £3 or not, will be available in every police station in England and Wales. I confirm that the Welsh language will be used, as it is already where Government documents are involved.
I have already referred to the Welsh language matter that was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. He also mentioned magistrates and warrants. I understand the unease that has been expressed in the debate about magistrates' warrants. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) also raised that point. Sections 15 and 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act lay down the condition under which warrants are issued. The police will make applications for warrants on forms to be issued by the Home Office, together with a circular note about the provision of the code. A standard application form will be used when a police officer makes an application to a magistrate. The form will clearly set out the information needed for the magistrate to satisfy himself that the requirements of the Act have been met.
However, I accept the points that have been raised. If that system is ineffective, I agree that we should have to consider further guidance to ensure that the practice can be carried out effectively. The intention is to do what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery seeks, which is to formalise and structure the procedure under which a magistrate can issue a warrant.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South was in robust form when he dealt with the duty solicitor scheme. My
520
hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) also raised that matter. At the risk of getting it wrong again, I can now correct myself by stating that the Law Society was substantially consulted by the Lord Chancellor's Department, but it did not consent to the two-tier arrangement that forms the present basis of the duty solicitor scheme. The arrangement was not regarded with much enthusiasm, but no alternative was offered by the Law Society for a scheme that would enable the 24-hour duty provisions to be enacted as speedily as we would wish. The scheme has not, as yet, gained the support of the Law Society, but the society was closely consulted.
I should tell the hon. Member for St. Helens, South that there will be an opportunity further to assess these matters when the provisions for legal aid orders are laid before the House, for one of which the affirmative procedure will be applied. I am happy to state that the Solicitor-General will move the orders. That will allow for discussion among lawyers, which will be signally more appropriate than a discussion with me.
I confirm for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North that the £50 limit on costs in the second tier for non-arrestable offences will include the payment for travelling time. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South accused the Government of proceeding without any idea about what might happen in practice. In pilot tests, the £50 figure emerged as the average cost in the majority of cases, although I accept that nothing will determine that figure more accurately than putting the scheme into practice. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North is dissatisfied with the limit, I suspect that he would welcome some scheme rather than none.
We must ensure that the provision of consultation with a lawyer is made available as of right to the suspect, and made available quickly. I must tell the hon. Member for St. Helens, South that the Lord Chancellor has undertaken to keep the operation of the scheme under early review. I am sure that decisions will be made in the light of experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough asked about firearms. I said in response to an earlier intervention that the Police Complaints Authority is likely to report on the use of firearms in searches, which clearly played a part in two of the tragic cases that are before the authority. My hon. Friend will recognise that the use of firearms is acutely sensitive in relation not only to the police but to the public. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to say more tonight than that I believe that the public interest will be served by the report of the Police Complaints Authority. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that any advice from the authority on training in the use of firearms and the methods by which those who use firearms are selected will be carefully and seriously considered. My hon. Friend will recall that, not too long ago, there was a thorough review of police practice in relation to firearms after the Waldorf case, which no doubt we all remember well.
I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, but I assure him that such matters are being reviewed by the Police Complaints Authority. Should it see fit, as I suspect it will, to make a special report on the matter, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider the lessons to be learnt from such cases.
I welcome the way in which hon. Members have contributed to our debate on the codes. It is clear that hon.

521
Members on both sides of the House believe that the codes are a significant step forward. Although some hon. Members may believe that the codes have disadvantages, the general feeling seems to be that, on the whole, the codes will have considerable advantages.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is in the Chamber. I am glad to know that the proposals set out in my letter to him relating to further protection for the deaf, especially the prelingually deaf, are likely to meet with their approval. That is symptomatic of our purpose. The codes will provide some reassurance that the rights of the public, whether they belong to ethnic groups or to disadvantaged groups, including the disabled, the deaf, those who have difficulty in speaking or the mentally ill, are clearly laid down in the form of codes that will have a significant bearing on the powers of the police while executing their duties. The codes will have force in the disciplinary code for the police which hon. Members have come to realise is a considerable advantage.
However, I trust that the codes include the correct expression of the view of Parliament, as contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, that a balance should be struck between the execution in the correct measure of new powers and the duties that Parliament has laid on the police. I assure the House of the extreme care with which the police approached their task, recognising that from 1 January 1986 they will be operating within a context that represents the biggest change in the statutory backing for policing for about 50 years. With those formidable prospects ahead of them, I am confident that they will discharge their duties effectively and well.
I am grateful to the House for accepting the spirit in which the codes were placed before it, and I look forward to the House approving them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (No. 1) Order 1985, dated 24th October 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Foods) (Amendrnent No. 2) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Regionfields Ltd. trading as Easdale Island Shipping Line, which was laid before this House on 21st October, in the Last Session of Parliament, be approved—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
Ordered,
That Mr. A. J. Beith be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Mr. James Wallace be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That Mr. Gerald Malone be discharged from the Select Committee on European legislation and Mr. Robin Squire be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

LIAISON COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. A. J. Beith be dischared from the Liaison Committee and Mr James Wallace be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Dr. John Marek be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Allan Rogers be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Malcolm Pike
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
10.4 pm
Mr. Nicholas Baker: It is with considerable alarm that I record that it is almost one year since I raised in the House for the first time the case of the detention in Libya of my constituent Malcolm Pike of Blandford St. Mary. I shall outline the background to the matter and, in particular, the developments during the past year of this most unfortunate case. In the light of those developments I shall make a number of recommendations.
I am heartened that the debate is to be answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). I was delighted at his recent appointment as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I know that that feeling is shared by many of my colleagues. As a Back Bencher he was renowned for the energy and combative nature of his advocacy. I earnestly hope that he will deploy all his skills in assisting me to help my unfortunate constituent.
Whatever help my hon. Friend and his colleagues can give will be vital if this young life is not to drag on in further dusty detention. But, as I have pointed out before, in the years ahead there are likely to be more and more Britons working overseas. That will happen as more and more British industries, manufacturing and service, undertake to join in the fierce competitive battles that are to be waged in overseas markets for the contracts on which our high standard of living depends. I hope that Britons are also increasingly likely to be engaged overseas in a second role, which is the provision of managerial and advisory services to overseas countries. I have mentioned that point before in the House, and I hope that I shall have future occasions on which to expand it. For the present debate it should be sufficient to draw to my hon. Friend's attention the great likelihood of an increasing number of Britons overseas and the necessity for an increased robustness in their protection on the part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Government Departments for reasons that will become clear.
Malcolm Pike, who is now 32 years old, worked for Lomond Engineering in Libya between 27 August 1980 and 11 June 1982. He was based in the company's office in Benghazi where he dealt with administrative and financial matters. The company was actively engaged in engineering contracting work in Libya. Mr. Pike worked as an accountant and left Libya in June 1982. He was unemployed for a time and lived at home in Blandford St. Mary in the most beautiful county in Britain.
In May or June 1983 he received a call from Mr. Mohammed Naim Sharafat who is of Pakistani nationality and was then the engineering and general manager of Lomond Engineering Company Ltd. in Libya. Mr. Sharafat asked whether Mr. Pike was interested in returning to work for Lomond Engineering in Tripoli. He explained that on 1 March 1983 the company had been nationalised and all the work and current contracts had been taken over by the National Petroleum Services Company of Libya. They required someone conversant with the company's affairs and accounting procedures. He explained that Mr. Pike would be involved in finalising the claim for compensation with NPSC and in dealings with
524
the tax office in Benghazi. Mr. Pike, who needed both the job and its salary, accepted the offer and returned to Libya on 24 June 1983.
Mr. Pike's task was to assist in finalising the claim for compensation by Lomond Engineering or its shareholders against the NPSC of Libya and to assist in dealing with its tax affairs. In both those matters his previous experience with the company and knowledge of its affairs was of considerable use.
On arrival he found that there were in Lomond Engineering's offices Mr. Sharafat and a Mr. Ismail Sakhnini, a Palestinian with Swedish nationality. The plan was that one person would go on holiday while the other two stayed in Libya. As Mr. Pike was to discover, this was required because the company had tax liabilities for the years 1980 to 1982, and the tax office in Benghazi had issued a letter to the immigration office there informing it of this liability and instructing it that at all times there should be one representative of Lomond Engineering kept in Libya. In August Mr. Sharafat left for a vacation but did not return. At this time a Mr. Samir Shawa was apparently controlling the company from London. Subsequently Mr. Pike left for a vacation in the United Kingdom but returned in October, whereupon Mr. Sakhnini left.
Despite a number of protestations by him that he would return to Libya to take Mr. Pike's place, he never did. During this time, rent on the company's flat in Libya was not paid and Mr. Pike did not have a company cheque book to enable any salaries, including his own, to be paid. The position of both the company and Mr. Pike became more and more serious.
At that time it became even more difficult for him or, indeed, anyone to contact Mr. Shawa. Mr. Pike was able to arrange for a Mr. Clive Downs to take his place for a short time to enable Mr. Pike to take a holiday to come back to the United Kingdom to try to sort matters out. This was done at the expense of Mr. Pike, who had to pay Mr. Downs to do this. Naturally, Mr. Pike, being a man of honour, returned to Libya to allow Mr. Downs to leave. A third visit was made later when matters became desperate in June 1984.
At this point in the story a Mr. Abbas Bunkheila, a Libyan national at present believed to be residing in the United Kingdom, comes on the scene. He had previously lived in Benghazi and worked with a company entitled Libyan Resources Development, and to him payments were made for assets in Libyan Resources Development and, according to Mr. Shawa, for other reasons.
Mr. Pike was owed the sum of about £16,000 by Lomond Engineering in August 1984 and is undoubtedly owed a good deal more money now.
Lomond Engineering is a company registered in the Cayman Islands, and a firm of what are apparently lawyers provide some of the directors. Lomond Commercial Ltd. is a company registered in the United Kingdom, apparently wholly-owned by Mr. Shawa. While there seems to be no formal connection between the companies, it was apparent to Mr. Pike that the two were run by Mr. Shawa, who certainly took decisions which affected Lomond Engineering.
Mr. Pike was, and remains to this day, detained in Libya without pay and is owed a substantial sum of unpaid salary and expenses. He has relied on the charity of friends and been fortunate, but he is not allowed to leave the country as the Libyan authorities are permitted under Libyan law to detain him as a hostage for the taxation bill

525
alleged to be owing by Lomond Engineering, the company for which he worked. Mr. Pike himself has no resources. He was never a shareholder in Lomond Engineering or connected with it in any way other than as an employee.
I raised the matter in correspondence with the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). I also raised the matter on the Adjournment on 21 December 1984, when it seemed that there was a possibility that Mr. Sakhnini would be prepared to go back to Libya to take Mr. Pike's place. This proved, as have other promises of such an arrangement, to be false, and since then no effective progress has been made.
Throughout this time Mr. Pike's father, Mr. Frank Pike, has worked tirelessly to try to contact the individuals connected with this company to obtain their help in securing his son's release. All his patient efforts by writing, telephoning, travelling and waiting have come to nothing. He has received no replies to his letters or information or assistance of any kind from these individuals.
I should also say that both Mr. George Anderson and Mr. Hugh Dunnachie of the Foreign Office, as representatives of Her Majesty's Government in Tripoli, have been as helpful as they can. Mr. Dunnachie's efforts to achieve Mr. Pike's release deserve considerable praise. Without his continuing help, Mr. Pike's condition would be even more serious than it is. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Pike, I extend the warmest thanks to him and all the Foreign Office staff involved.
This is a murky and mysterious matter and it has involved prolonged correspondence, discussions and negotiations with other companies bearing the Lomond name. These reveal, among other things, that Lomond Engineering has circulated a set of accounts containing a forged opinion. That is not the only thing that needs to be investigated.
It appears that Mr. Sakhnini visited Libya in June this year to try to negotiate the settlement of the company's tax liabilities, but he did not contact Mr. Pike and no arrangements were made to release Mr. Pike from his detention. Apparently, cheques for 260,000 Libyan dinas were issued by the National Petroleum Services Company to Mr. Sakhnini on his visit to Libya, but he failed entirely to use that money, as promised, to secure Mr. Pike's release. It is also apparent that, despite denials, Mr. Sakhnini was appointed as attorney of Lomond Engineering and that he was an employee of the company at one stage.
I have said that the conduct of Mr. Shawa, Mr. Sakhnini and Mr. Bunkheila and Mr. Floyd Cullup, who signed a document appointing Mr. Sakhnini attorney of Lomond Engineering, deserves investigation, and the part played by Mr. Shawa in particular seems utterly reprehensible.
I understand that Mr. Shawa has applied for naturalisation, but purely on the ground that he has apparently brought about the detention of a British citizen in Libya I would regard him as somebody utterly unfit and undesirable to be a naturalised British citizen.
I also understand that there have been suggestions that Mr. Bunkheila and others connected with the company have wished to prolong their stay in the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding the preliminary views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), Minister of State, Home Office, in May last
526
year, I believe that there is now evidence of serious misconduct which should make it unthinkable that anyone connected with this company should be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom.
I am therefore making a plea, on behalf of an anguished Mr. and Mrs. Frank Pike, who have borne the detention of their son with considerable fortitude over a long period of time, that my hon. Friend will take the following action.
First, will my hon. Friend make the strongest representations, through the admittedly limited means available, to the Libyan authorities that my constituent, who has no funds, and no control over the assets of the company, and is of no use to the Libyan authorities, should be allowed to leave Libya forthwith?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, to this debate and ask him to re-examine immediately any requests to stay in or enter the United Kingdom by Messrs. Shawa, Bunkheila, Sakhnini, Cullop and anyone else involved with Lomond Engineering?
Thirdly, will my hon. Friend support and assist any inquiries that may be instituted in connection with some of the more serious aspects of this matter?
My hon. Friend must understand the deep gloom of a family who see their son's continuing detention far from home by heartless and possibly criminal activities of a small number of people. I hope that he will do everything that he can to rescue my constituent from his desperate plight.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) on obtaining this debate, and on selecting for debate the subject on which he has addressed us so ably. I thank him also for the kind personal remarks that he made about me at the beginning of his speech.
I know that my hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of Mr. Pike, who is one of his constituents. I know, too, that for well over a year Mr. Pike's plight has been distressing both to himself and to his family. My hon. Friend raised this case as long ago as December 1984, and I am deeply sorry that the case is still dragging on. Nobody who listened to that debate almost a year ago would have believed that it could be possible for the case still to be dragging on. I join my hon. Friend in hoping very much that the case will soon be resolved.
Before speaking in more detail about the particular points that were raised by my hon. Friend, I think that it would be appropriate to set out the context both of our own difficult relations with Libya and the generality of the consular protection that we are able to provide across the world. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have particular cases that they have followed carefully. I hope, therefore, that my general remarks will be of wider interest.
The House will be aware that the United Kingdom broke off diplomatic relations with Libya in April 1984, following the tragic incident in St. James's square, but we have no wish to impede ordinary private contacts or civilian commercial exchanges between Britain and Libya. It was because of the break in diplomatic relations that we decided to allow the Libyans to maintain an interests section in the embassy of its protecting power, Saudi Arabia. This interests section was staffed by two Libyan

527
officials. Two British consular officials were appointed to constitute the British interests section at the Italian embassy in Tripoli. We are grateful to the Italian Government for agreeing to act as our protecting power in Libya. We are also grateful for the performance of our consular officers in Libya. It is not an easy task. I know that they will be heartened by my hon. Friend's very kind remarks about them.
Many British subjects travelling or working abroad find themselves in difficulties. I have particular sympathy for Mr. Pike, not least because his difficulties lie towards one end of the spectrum in two respects. The first is the severity of his difficulties. The second is the fact that they have been going on for such a long time. The difficulties of many British subjects can be cleared up in a few hours, often without the help of local consular staff, and often even without intervention by the British Government in London. However, those British subjects who need assistance can get it from the Foreign Office in London and from diplomatic service officers in embassies and consulates abroad. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that we have about 290 diplomatic officers abroad who are engaged in full time consular work, and that they are supported by about 137 locally engaged staff.
To give some idea of the problems that are faced by my Department, I should tell the House that about 5 million or 6 million Britons are resident overseas. I cannot be more certain of the number, because many of them do not register with local embassies or high commissions. A further 22 million Britons travel overseas each year—in other words, nearly half the population of the United Kingdom. That figure is about four times as many as travelled abroad 20 years ago.
In the Foreign Office we do our best to keep up with the increasing work load. We shift our staff around to meet peak times throughout the world and we also keep our staff levels under constant review. We support the staff abroad in a number of ways. We have a consular department in London which has staff to call on every day of the year, 24 hours a day, with the exception of Christmas day. The London staff may give advice to people who are going abroad before they leave and then help to solve the problems which sometimes arise after they get there.
I recommend to my hon. Friend, although I am sure that he has seen it, an excellent leaflet entitled "Get it right before you go", which has been widely distributed. It explains in succinct language what we can do and also, I am afraid, what we cannot do. Members of the public who want more detailed advice on specific countries, particularly in such areas as the middle east where local laws and working conditions are very different from those in the United Kingdom, can get that kind of information from our consular department.
I shall tell my hon. Friend what our consuls can and cannot do. They can ensure that a British subject is informed of his legal rights, but they cannot give legal advice themselves. They can ensure that British subjects are treated no worse in prison than are local nationals, but they cannot get people out of prison. In a nutshell, we can help British citizens abroad who fall foul of the law in a given country, but we cannot get another country to change its laws, however different those laws may be from our own.
528
That provides a backdrop to the specific question of Libya and the tragic case of Mr. Pike. Local law there, as in many other Arab countries, provides that an employee may be held responsible for his firm's debts and should not be allowed to leave the country until the debts are settled. The Government cannot intervene in the process of law in Libya, any more than we would accept attempts by Libya, or another country, to interfere in our law. Nor can we become involved in what is essentially a commercial dispute in which Mr. Pike finds himself, however tragic and sad the circumstances.
Since Mr. Pike returned to Libya 18 months ago, on 8 June 1984, he has been unable to leave the country because he has been held responsible for the tax debts of his employers, Lomond Engineering. Sadly, Lomond Engineering is not a United Kingdom registered company, it does not have a United Kingdom office, and it appears to have deliberately deserted Mr. Pike. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the company is responsible for the situation in which Mr. Pike finds himself.
There are cases where British nationals have been, or are currently, prevented from leaving other Arab countries, not Libya, because they are held responsible for their firms' debts. Hundreds of British companies work in the Arab world, and they must arrange that one of their expatriate staff is responsible for the affairs of the company. In doing so, the company recognises that that expatriate can be prevented from leaving if the company incurs debts. However, in all but a tiny minority of cases problems do not arise because the companies either have no debts or negotiate a settlement. As in this case, companies arrange a rota whereby a substitute representative stands in for leave purposes. That practice is entirely acceptable to local authorities.
In addition to the visit to which my hon. Friend referred, a representative of Lomond Engineering visited Libya in April 1985 and received a payment for the company's equipment. That sum was subsequently used to reduce the tax debt, but, sadly, a considerable amount of debt remains outstanding. Interestingly, the Libyan authorities apparently took no action to prevent the representative from leaving Libya.
The Government's scope to assist Mr. Pike is limited. Our British interests section in Tripoli has been supportive of him since his plight was first brought to its attention. It has given such advice and assistance as it properly can. The head of the British interests section has discussed his plight with the Libyan tax authorities on at least six occasions in an endeavour to overcome the problem. The Italian embassy, as the protecting power, has addressed notes to the Libyan authorities requesting that Mr. Pike be granted an exit visa, but without result.
I understand the current position is that a British firm which is highly specialised in Libyan tax matters is preparing a case to present to the Libyan tax authorities in an endeavour to secure Mr. Pike's departure from Libya. I am delighted to say that that firm is doing the work without intending to charge for it.
I am aware, as my hon. Friend said, that Mr. Pike's father has been in contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at intervals throughout the year, and he discussed his son's position with our consul in Tripoli on 6 August when the consul was on leave in the United Kingdom.

529
Towards the end of his remarks my hon. Friend made three requests. The first was that we should approach the Libyan authorities and do everything within our power to ensure that Mr. Pike is allowed to leave Libya. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We shall continue to take every possible opportunity to press the Libyan authorities and to urge them to grant an exit visa, but that, I am afraid, must be within the constraints that I have already explained.
My hon. Friend's second request was that I should draw his speech to the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I shall be delighted to do that. I shall also ensure that my hon. and learned Friend is made aware of the information that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has about the case.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked that my Department should be willing to assist inquiries about the case and the performance of the company within the United Kingdom. It occurs to me, after hearing what my hon. Friend said,
530
that it might be worth bringing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry into this matter to see whether he has any powers, although we must take account of the fact that the company is not United Kingdom registered and his powers may well be limited. However, we shall follow up that point.
I wish to reiterate the sympathy that the Government feel for Mr. Pike. He has, unfortunately, found himself in a kind of limbo. He is not, fortunately, deprived of his liberty within Libya, but he is deprived of his liberty and freedom to leave Libya.
As I have said, I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to do everything that we properly can to assist Mr. Pike. I hope that with the help of the officials in my Department and my colleagues, we can bring his difficulties to an end as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary Schools (Curricula)
  Primary Schools (Curricula)
  16–plus Examination
  16–plus Examination
  Research Grants
  Research Grants
  Pupils (Midday Supervision)
  Pupils (Midday Supervision)
  Mathematics and Modern Languages
  Mathematics and Modern Languages
  Disabled University Students
  Disabled University Students
  Married University Students
  Married University Students
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Post Office (Welsh Language)
  Post Office (Welsh Language)
  Motor Car Industry
  Motor Car Industry
  Pharmaceutical Investment
  Pharmaceutical Investment
  Crown Suppliers
  Crown Suppliers
  Hong Kong Festival
  Hong Kong Festival
  Electricity (Resale)
  Electricity (Resale)
  Grants (Job Creation)
  Grants (Job Creation)
ENERGY
  British Gas (External Financing Limit)
  British Gas (External Financing Limit)
  Sellafield (Separation of Facilities)
  Sellafield (Separation of Facilities)
  Natural Gas
  Natural Gas
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Cresswell Crags
  Cresswell Crags
  Woolwich Prison
  Woolwich Prison
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Guildhall, Dartmouth
  Guildhall, Dartmouth
  Old Battery, Dartmouth Castle
  Old Battery, Dartmouth Castle
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Catering Equipment (Import Penetration)
  Catering Equipment (Import Penetration)
  Weedon Aqueduct
  Weedon Aqueduct
  North Oxford Canal (Emergency Works)
  North Oxford Canal (Emergency Works)
  Municipal Housing (Repair Costs)
  Municipal Housing (Repair Costs)
  Local Government Act 1985
  Local Government Act 1985
  Asbestos Removal
  Asbestos Removal
  Mineral Damaged Land
  Mineral Damaged Land
  Water Authorities (Civil Defence Plans)
  Water Authorities (Civil Defence Plans)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Facsimile Document Transmission
  Facsimile Document Transmission
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Holy Trinity Church, Paddington
  Holy Trinity Church, Paddington
  "Faith in the City"
  "Faith in the City"
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Crown Prosecution Service
TRANSPORT
  Thames Water (Mogden Works)
  Thames Water (Mogden Works)
  British Rail (Modernisation)
  British Rail (Modernisation)
  North Sea Oil (Support Vessels)
  North Sea Oil (Support Vessels)
  Drivers (Testing)
  Drivers (Testing)
  Motorway (Accident Statistics)
  Motorway (Accident Statistics)
  Woolwhich Ferry (Traffic Forecasts)
  Woolwhich Ferry (Traffic Forecasts)
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
  M20 (Maidstone-Ashford)
  M20 (Maidstone-Ashford)
  Ml Motorway
  Ml Motorway
  GLC (Taxicard Scheme)
  GLC (Taxicard Scheme)
  Long Haul Flights (Route Licences)
  Long Haul Flights (Route Licences)
  Helicopter Pilots
  Helicopter Pilots
  Aircraft (Smoke Hoods)
  Aircraft (Smoke Hoods)
  Aircraft (Halon Gas Flooding)
  Aircraft (Halon Gas Flooding)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Oil Spillage (Report)
  Oil Spillage (Report)
WALES
  Hotel and Catering Industries
  Hotel and Catering Industries
  Housing (Financial Allocations)
  Housing (Financial Allocations)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ethiopia (Food Aid)
  Ethiopia (Food Aid)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Proportional Representation
  Proportional Representation
  Hotel and Catering Industries
  Hotel and Catering Industries
  Hospital Development
  Hospital Development
HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Inner Cities
  Inner Cities
  Shops Bill
  Shops Bill
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Immigration
  Immigration
  SCOPE Report
  SCOPE Report
  Police Policy
  Police Policy
  Visas
  Visas
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Buses and Lorries (Speeding Offences)
  Buses and Lorries (Speeding Offences)
  Arrested Persons (Tottenham)
  Arrested Persons (Tottenham)
  Crime and Deprivation
  Crime and Deprivation
  Murder (Penalty)
  Murder (Penalty)
  Thames Valley Police
  Thames Valley Police
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Television Licence Fee
  Television Licence Fee
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Bodies (Forensic identification)
  Bodies (Forensic identification)
  Violent Crime
  Violent Crime
  Unlawful Killing
  Unlawful Killing
  Community Policing
  Community Policing
  Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse
  Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse
  Police and Prison Officers
  Police and Prison Officers
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Trespass
  Trespass
  Rape Victims
  Rape Victims
  Prison Places
  Prison Places
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  Police Establishments
  Police Establishments
  Age of Consent
  Age of Consent
  Car Sirens
  Car Sirens
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985
  Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985
  Woolwich Prison
  Woolwich Prison
  Swansea and Cardiff Prisons
  Swansea and Cardiff Prisons
  Drug Offences
  Drug Offences
  Obscenity
  Obscenity
  Crime (Incidence)
  Crime (Incidence)
  Demonstrators
  Demonstrators
  Police Officers (Fatalities and Injuries)
  Police Officers (Fatalities and Injuries)
  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Housebreaking
  Housebreaking
PRIME MINISTER
  Central Scotland
  Central Scotland
  Low-paid and Pensioners
  Low-paid and Pensioners
  USSR (Visit)
  USSR (Visit)
  European Summit
  European Summit
  Disarmament Conference
  Disarmament Conference
  Cabinet Papers
  Cabinet Papers
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Israeli Espionage
  Israeli Espionage
  Heads of Government (Entertainment Costs)
  Heads of Government (Entertainment Costs)
  Prime Ministerial Travel (Aircraft Use)
  Prime Ministerial Travel (Aircraft Use)
  EC Meetings
  EC Meetings
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Hotel and Catering Industries
  Hotel and Catering Industries
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow University
  Glasgow University
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Housing Support Grants
  Housing Support Grants
  Sheriff Courts
  Sheriff Courts
  Hotel and Catering Industries
  Hotel and Catering Industries
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  NHS Management (Griffiths Proposals)
  NHS Management (Griffiths Proposals)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  School Closures
  School Closures
THE ARTS
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
CIVIL SERVICE
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
NATIONAL FINANCE
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Consultant-Junior Doctor Ratio
  Consultant-Junior Doctor Ratio
  Sickness Benefit (Hereford and Worcester)
  Sickness Benefit (Hereford and Worcester)
  Nurses (Costs)
  Nurses (Costs)
  Contraceptive Pill (Prescriptions)
  Contraceptive Pill (Prescriptions)
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  High Rent Area Scheme
  High Rent Area Scheme
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Heating Additions
  Heating Additions
  Crown Immunity
  Crown Immunity
  Disabled Persons (Access)
  Disabled Persons (Access)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Court of Human Rights
  European Court of Human Rights
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Peace Organisations
  Peace Organisations
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  MBFR Talks
  MBFR Talks
  NATO (Barrier Defence)
  NATO (Barrier Defence)
  Equipment Losses
  Equipment Losses
  RAF Personnel
  RAF Personnel
  Leukaemia and Lymphatic Cancer
  Leukaemia and Lymphatic Cancer
  Departmental Staff (Payments)
  Departmental Staff (Payments)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fish (Mercury Levels)
  Fish (Mercury Levels)
  Equal Opportunities Officer
  Equal Opportunities Officer

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

Electricity Resale: Publicity
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to their Answer on 29th October (col. 1445), whether they will make a Statement on the wide-ranging discussions they have had with the electricity supply industry about the report of the Director General of Fair Trading, including his recommendation for wider publicity.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will arrange for a full Statement on the lines requested by the noble Baroness to be printed in the Official Report. Briefly, however, the Government's discussions with the industry have been successfully completed. Many electricity boards have already discussed improved publicity with their consultative councils and others will include it in the normal discussions on the next general round of tariff changes. The Government expect to deal with the question of overcharging by landlords, not by making it a separate criminal offence but as part of the proposed new legislation on misleading price indications announced in my noble friend's Statement of 4th March to this House.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement, acceptable not only to me and to the House but to the large numbers of people affected by the resale of electricity. Does he realise how glad we are that the Government are evidently not prepared to tolerate this abuse by a minority of landlords and that we had better now await the details of the proposed legislation to see how far this covers the points raised by the director general in his original report and whether they are workable? Can the Minister say whether legislation is to be expected this Session and, if so, when? Finally, I am most grateful for what the Government have done.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her generous remarks. I would pay tribute to the leading role that she takes on behalf of the consumer. I am afraid that I cannot be specific in answering her final point. The best that I can tell her is that legislation will be forthcoming as soon as parliamentary time permits.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that when the legislation dealing with this matter is being framed special attention will be paid to its enforcement? Is he
1404
aware that very often it is the enforcement that falls down when regulations are made?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, yes, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why the Government decided that the particular offence referred to earlier should not be a new special offence, one of the reasons being that this would require access to private property, which always causes great difficulty.
Following is the Statement referred to above:
"The Government expect to deal with this subject not by making overcharging a separate criminal offence but as part of the proposed new legislation on misleading price indications announced in my noble friend Lord Lucas's Statement of 4th March to this House. When the necessary powers become available under that legislation we would expect to introduce an order which would require those who resell electricity to give itemised bills which include a statement showing the number of units charged for. the rates applied and the statutory maximum rate. The general provisions of that legislation, under which it would be a criminal offence to give a misleading price indication, or to fail to comply with an order, would then apply to those bills and the information given in them. The present civil remedy would also continue to be available.
"The electricity supply industry, with the agreement of the Government, has decided not to abolish the daily availability charge as recommended in the report but, instead, to rationalise it throughout the United Kingdom on the basis that the maximum any tenant will pay through the daily availability charge will be no more than he would pay through the domestic standing charge if he were a standard direct credit customer of his electricity board. The industry has satisfied itself that this will be a fair arrangement for both tenants and landlords and expects to introduce this change in the next general round of tariff changes, probably in the spring of 1986. The arrangements for itemised bills will also embrace the daily availability charge.
"I understand that many electricity boards are discussing with their area electricity consultative councils what steps should be taken with regard to the report's recommendation that there should be increased publicity for maximum resale prices. In some areas, discussions have already taken place and in others the subject will be included as part of the normal discussions regarding the next general round of tariff changes. The Government recognise that additional publicity will be necessary for the new powers which I have outlined today at the time they become available and will consider the form this should take in due course. The industry has however already informed the Government of its willingness to play its part by incorporating details of the new arrangements in its own leaflets, showroom notices and other advertisements about the maximum resale price of electricity".

Overseas Aid: OECD Comparisons
3.11 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the average reduction in their overseas aid in real terms over the past six years and how this compares with the figures for the rest of the OECD.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, OECD aid statistics mix amounts actually spent and, for certain forms of multilateral aid, funds committed. As a result they do not necessarily reflect aid expenditure in any one year. On OECD calculations, net aid from OECD countries taken together increased by 3·9 per cent. a year in real terms between 1978 and 1984, while British net aid fell by 4·2 per cent. But in terms of

1405
expenditure in real terms British aid fell by 0·5 per cent. a year over the same period.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that according to the OECD figures British committed aid over that six-year period fell by 6 per cent. annually whereas that of the OECD Development Assistance Committee members increased by an average of around 4 per cent.?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have given the precise figures in the Answer to the noble Lord's original Question. What is very important, I believe, is to look and see what happened in spending terms, which shows that the decline is much smaller—only 0·5 per cent.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that sometimes it is not the actual amount that matters but the effectiveness of those sums? Did not the government of Ethiopia in the years from 1978 to 1982 receive 1 billion dollars of aid from the West and from the United Kingdom, and did not the Sudan in the same period get 2·5 billion dollars? Can we be assured that those huge sums do get down so that the poorest are substantially helped and not other areas that are less deserving?
Baroness Young: My noble friend makes a most important point. We always try to see that British aid is well targeted and well spent.
Lord Oram: My Lords, do not the DAC figures, to which the noble Baroness referred, show that Britain is very much the worst performer in aid terms in comparison with all the other members of the OECD? For instance, Italy has a positive record over the last six years of some 8 per cent., France 7·5 per cent. and Germany 8 per cent., whereas our performance has been negative. We have been declining, whereas they have been impressively increasing their aid programmes.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, takes the statistics which he has used from the recently published table of OECD aid expenditure. But of course if we look at our aid performance as a percentage of GNP in absolute terms we have the sixth largest aid programme and within the European Community the third largest.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that only two other members of the OECD Development Committee reduced their aid over this six-year period by minuscule amounts, whereas ours was declining by 6 per cent. a year? Would the noble Baroness not agree in relation to her last figure that aid provided by this Government currently reaches only 0·33 per cent. of our GDP, whereas when this Government came into office it was 0·49 per cent.?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the statistics that the noble Lord gave in the first part of his supplementary question from the OECD table are correct. But the noble Lord should know that the increases which have
1406
been announced for the aid programme in the coming three years more than maintain the real value of our aid programme and are considerable sums of money.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the noble Baroness the Minister expand on the answer she gave to her noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and tell us what practical steps the British Government are taking to see that the money given is properly spent?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware of these from the published reports from the Overseas Development Administration, from the Statements made by my right honourable friend Mr. Raison, and from the answers given to a number of specific questions.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that a great number of people go out from these shores to help under this particular organisation, and that the quality of the people going out is remarkably high?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes. A great deal of our aid money goes on technical co-operation schemes. The point that my noble friend makes is a very valid one. What is important is what is achieved with the money.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer the second part of my second supplementary question? Will she confirm that the Government are presently allocating no more than 0·33 per cent. of our GDP, whereas the figure was 0 49 per cent. when this Government came into office in 1979?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can confirm that in 1984 we were spending 0·33 per cent. of our GDP on overseas aid. But, as I have already indicated to the noble Lord, we have made increases which will more than maintain the real value of the programme.

Gat wick Airport: Immigration Service Staffing
3.16 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will increase the number of immigration officers at Gatwick Airport next year to handle the expected expansion of traffic and to reduce the delays that occurred last summer.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, a review of the Immigration Service staffing at Gatwick has recently been completed, and staffing levels for next summer will be decided when the recommendations of the report have been considered. Although there were some delays at peak times last summer, the clearance times through the immigration control were at most periods satisfactory.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that helpful reply, and being the first to congratulate him on his maiden reply from the Dispatch Box, may I ask him whether he has figures on the waiting times, including the peak periods, and whether the review that is being undertaken includes consultations with both airlines and the British Airports Authority?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. It is not my maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box. I have managed to adjourn the House three times—successfully.
On the first part of his question, the British Airports Authority survey showed the following average waiting times at the immigration control area from June until August 1985: British and EEC nationals, one minute; other passengers, 13 minutes. Ninety-five per cent. of all passengers were cleared within 30 minutes of arrival at immigration control.
So far as the second part of my noble friend's question is concerned, the British Airports Authority is quite satisfied with the situation as it is; and the airlines and the British Airports Authority will be considering the review in due course.

Channel Fixed Link
3.18 p.m..
Lord Ferrier: 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, as reported in the Daily Telegraph of 14th November, it is true that they are in the course of committing the United Kingdom to a fixed channel link.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the newspaper report referred to by my noble friend was based upon a misunderstanding. It was corrected the following day.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that disarming reply may I ask him whether he is aware of the increasing number of people from Scotland, and the North and South, who are distressed by the prospect of a direct link because they regard it as a potential danger?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes. There is an increasing number of people who are against the link. However, I think that there is an increasing number of people who are for the link because of the advantages that it can offer to this country. I was in Scotland recently and I was tackled on this matter. I think that Scotland has a lot to gain from a link.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply, do not the Government agree that it is highly desirable and essential that this House should debate the principle of a direct link as well as the relative nature of possible direct links before the
1408
Government make a decision on a particular project? I hope the Government will agree that through the usual channels it will be possible to arrange a debate on this issue.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the United Kingdom-French Study Group reported on this matter in 1982, and a copy of the report was placed in the Library. It is for the usual channels to decide whether or not there is to be a debate.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as this is probably the largest fixed capital investment ever to be carried out in this country without a public inquiry of any sort—and it matters not whether it be public or private in this context—is it not the case that last time round, in 1973, there was a full range of inquiries which, for instance, reported in detail on the effects of a fixed Channel link on all the ferry routes from Felixstowe right round to Southampton, and not just the short-sea routes? Is that not a fair instance of the sort of action that ought to be taken this time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there has been a considerable amount of public consultation. This consultation has been undertaken by all those who have submitted schemes. There have been advertisements in the papers. There has been intense lobbying of Members of Parliament and Members of this House. I do not think it can be said that there has been no consultation.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the environmental impact of a fixed link is bound to be very far-reaching indeed, and of course permanent? Is he aware of the widely held view that the amount of time that has been allowed to consider this impact is wholly inadequate?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, I would not consider the time for consultation to be too short. In this fast moving commercial world, and comparing it with that world, it is not too short a time.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware of the distinction between a public inquiry and public consultations?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, I am.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware that he dismissed rather lightly the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, regarding the increasing concern in the North of England at this project going ahead without a public inquiry? I come from the North. Is the noble Earl not aware that the people up there consider that to go ahead with this tunnel without full consultation or a public inquiry could further exacerbate the grave economic differences between the North and the South?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has actually asked me a question; I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Ferrier. As I have said, there has been considerable public consultation, and if there is to be

1409
a fixed link I believe that the North stands to benefit both from the work that is available for a fixed link and in the long-term.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, referring back to those long-ago days when I was in another place in the early 1950s, is it not correct that discussion on the desirability of having a Channel tunnel was then mooted? We have waited a very long time until now, and is the noble Earl aware that I for one very much hope that the Prime Minister and President Mitterand will make a decision to go ahead early next year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and I shall pass on those remarks.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us share the anxieties of his noble friend Lord Ferrier on this matter? Is he further aware that the whole concept of a permanent link with the continent of Europe has to be considered within a far wider context than has been the case so far? Is the noble Earl aware that there is a difference between public consultation and lobbying, to which we have all been subjected?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware of the anxieties which are being taken into account in the assessments being carried out at the moment. I am also aware of the increasing frustration of those who long to see a Channel tunnel and who have been debating this at the slowness that it has taken to reach this stage.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, if there were to be a public inquiry into this matter, it could drag on for years and years, cost the country an enormous amount of money, destroy a great many potential exports, and do nothing but total harm?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is of course open for those at public inquiries to keep matters proceeding for quite a long time. I believe that that is well understood.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, before the Government reach a decision, may we assume that they will carefully consider the defence aspects of this question from every point of view?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very pleased to confirm that that is being taken into account at the moment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in view of the unusual conjunction of opinion, including that between the noble Earl, Lord Ferrier, and myself, will the Government look again at the whole matter?

Business: Christmas Recess
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on UNESCO. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Statement which is to be made in another place on the European Council Meeting in Luxembourg should, by leave of the House, be printed in the Official Report.
Your Lordships may also like to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday 19th December and return on Tuesday 14th January. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 19th December.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, if the Statement on the European Council Meeting is not to be repeated here, can he say whether we shall have an opportunity to discuss it quite soon because many of us are deeply concerned at the outcome of that meeting?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is quite a usual step that Statements are printed in the Official Report when they are made in another place. I do not think that it is usual to have a debate on them subsequently. I believe that that is a matter for the usual channels.

European Council: Luxembourg, 2nd-3rd December
Following is the Statement referred to:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council held in Luxembourg on 2–3 December.
"My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary accompanied me to this meeting. I have arranged for the conclusions of the Council to be put in the Library of the House.
"The European Council reached agreement in five main areas. First, the completion of the Community's Internal Market.
"This has been an important United Kingdom objective for a long time, with the strong support of British industry and business. The target of completing the common market by 1992 will be established in the treaty. And we agreed that there should be greater use of majority voting on a number of treaty articles dealing with goods and services. But unanimity will be retained for all decisions on taxation, the free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employees. We also retain the right to take national action where required to protect public, animal and plant health.
"The United Kingdom's position and the position of this House are thus properly protected on such vital questions as frontier controls in relation to terrorism, crime, drugs and immigration from

1411
outside the community; and on essential controls in the field of health, for example of rabies.
"The Luxembourg Compromise, whereby a member state can invoke a very important national interest to prevent a decision being taken, is unaffected. Secondly, the European Council agreed that the treaty should be brought up to date by new articles on technology, environment and the regional fund. Action has hitherto been taken in these areas on the basis of the general article in the treaty. The new articles will provide a more precise basis for action in these areas in future. Unanimity will be preserved for all important decisions.
"Third, we agreed on procedural changes to improve consultation with the European Assembly. There will be better arrangements to enable the council to take account of amendments to Community legislation suggested by the assembly. But in all cases the last word on such legislation will rest with the council. There will be no transfer of power on these matters from this House to the assembly.
"Fourth, on monetary co-operation between member states, an amendment to the treaty was agreed which describes what has already been achieved in the community framework, without entering into new commitments. Finally, agreement was reached on a separate treaty of co-operation in foreign policy on the basis of the draft presented last summer by the United Kingdom. This formalises existing arrangements for consultation among the ten on foreign policy matters and looks to a steadily closer co-operation.
"The European Council's decisions on these matters remain subject to general reservations from Italy and Denmark. The proposed amendments to the treaty will go forward only if these reserves are lifted. The United Kingdom has reserved its position on the voting arrangements in a proposed new treaty article on working conditions. We insist that unanimity be preserved. In view of the risks that this article might be used to impose unfair burdens on our small and medium-sized business.
"The European Council also discussed the economic and social situation and confirmed existing economic policies designed to reduce inflation and encourage sustained growth. On deregulation, the Commission gave an undertaking: that in future all new proposals would be accompanied by an assessment of the effects on business and job creation; that the most important existing regulations would be re-examined to simplify them and reduce the burden on industry; and that there should be a regular procedure for monitoring progress towards this objective.
"The United Kingdom's initiative earlier this year has thus been formally adopted. In my Statement in this House following the last European Council in June, I made clear that we would have been ready then to take the steps necessary to complete the internal market, to improve decision taking, to formalise foreign policy co-operation and to improve procedures for consultation with the European Assembly.
"Those objectives are now embodied in the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council together with some tidying up of the treaty to reflect the Community's development. The amendments to the treaty have to be approved by each sovereign parliament and accordingly will be submitted to this House.
"Mr. Speaker, I believe that the conclusions on completing the common market and reducing the burden of regulations will be of long-term benefit to British firms selling their goods and services in the european community. Together with the arrangements to reduce the scale of Britain's budgetary contribution agreed last year, they will be an important step towards enabling this country to realise more fully the benefits of our membership of the European Community."

Business of the House
3.27p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Harris of Greenwich and the Baroness Seear set down for 11 th December shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix H to the Companion to Standing Orders shall apply to each debate.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Okehampton Bypass (Confirmation of Orders) Bill
3.28p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now considered on Report.
The Government bring this Bill to the House because we think that a southern bypass is right for Okehampton. The new road there is a key element in the national road programme. It is a major plank in regional development. Without it, West Devon and Cornwall would not be linked properly to the national road network. The people of Okehampton should not have to suffer traffic as they do all year round, and not just at holiday times as is often believed. It is the policy of this and successive governments that there should be a good national network of roads and that through traffic, particularly heavy goods traffic, should be kept away from people. This scheme meets both criteria. It follows that our proposals are a matter of policy and that there should be a bypass soon.
Many thousands await your Lordships' decision. They are anxious in case this House delays the appearance in their local papers of comments such as:
"Street Where Traffic Chaos Melted Away
A mother can even safely walk her child across the road in a push chair—just like the old days when traffic helped govern town life instead of choking it to death."

1413
That is what the people of Reigate read two months ago, after the M.25 opened. I hope that we shall not be accused of delaying it for Okehampton.
There is still, however, considerable controversy about where the bypass should be. So let me start by briefly saying a word on the environment. From my background, many noble Lords would know that this is to me the most important consideration. I am as convinced as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport that our predecessors made the right decision in going for the southern route. He described why he was so convinced at some length in the other place. When I went to look for myself I could see quite clearly why the inspector at the public inquiry, while saying that the landscape south of Okehampton was of great merit, concluded that building a road to the north of the town would do greater environmental damage than a southern route. It is a balanced decision that we have had to take, but it is the environment which tips the balance.
Wherever one builds a new road in such an attractive part of the country, it is a soul-searching decision and one which will cause some environmental problems. But the impact on the landscape would be greater in the north than in the south. I am sure other noble Lords will go into this aspect in greater detail during the debate. Therefore, without downgrading the environmental considerations I want to give prominence to some aspects of the Bill which were not fully dealt with in the other place.
I turn first to open space. For many years compulsory purchase orders which would take open space have been subject to special parliamentary procedure unless the Secretary of State for the Environment can certify that "land not less in area and…equally advantageous to the public" is to be given in exchange. The current law is consolidated in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
We knew before the 1979 public inquiry that two acres of dedicated open space at the northern end of Meldon Woods would have to be taken permanently for the new road. Our compulsory purchase orders provided for four acres to be given in exchange. The inspector, however, found that this land was not equally advantageous to the public. He also found that about 20 acres of privately-owned land on East Hill which was also required for the road was, as a matter of fact, "Used for the purposes of public recreation". The sense of his finding was that, although the land was privately owned, it ought to be treated for exchange land purposes as though it were de jure open space. The department could not have included in the compulsory purchase orders exchange land for that area, because when the order was prepared this land was, and is still, privately owned. Furthermore, there was the added difficulty that the public had no legal rights, and we could hardly have offered land in exchange for rights that do not legally exist.
The Secretary of State could have, at this stage, decided to try to purchase additional exchange land compulsorily for the land at Meldon Woods and at East Hill. Those new compulsory purchase orders would almost certainly have led to another public inquiry. Alternatively, he could have introduced a hybrid Bill. Instead he decided that special
1414
parliamentary procedure offered the best course. Since then, with the help of the CLA, to whom I pay tribute, we have found a further 30 acres of land which we believe the owners are willing to sell by agreement and which we hope to buy under separate powers to mitigate the effects of the road and make available for use as open space if the Bill goes through. With the four acres already in the CPO, and a further eight acres which we may buy or manage for additional landscaping and public use purposes, in all about 40 acres are in prospect to replace the 23 acres of open space taken for the road. The two plots intended for public use are, in my judgment, more use to the public than Meldon Woods. They are closer to the centre of Okehampton, the public will have a legal right to be on them, and they will not be ruined by road noise as was implied in another place.
I should say also at this point that the report of the Joint Committee is a little misleading when it says in paragraph 3 that,
"Public open spaces form such a large proportion of the Southern Route".
There are only two acres dedicated as open space for public use, and only 23 acres out of the 140 taken for the route was found to be open space by the inspector.
I should also correct another error made in another place. It was suggested that a northern route would avoid any problem of open space. This may not be so. There is a possibility that the inspector could determine that de facto open space exists at a place common to all the northern routes. The Joint Select Committee were told about it. We do not know if, on full investigation, it would be found to be open space, but it might be. Special parliamentary procedure might again be necessary, and the process we are going through might have to be repeated. This could mean further delay, but let me make it clear that we have not provided for it in our timetable for a northern route, which I shall come to later.
Let me recap on the decisions and procedures that have taken place. As I have already said, it was purely the question of open space that triggered the submission of the orders to Parliament under the Statutory Orders Special Procedure Act 1945 as amended in 1965. Under this procedure, and following the making of the orders, there are 21 days to enable petitioners to lodge petitions of either a general or specific nature. If a petition is lodged, it is scrutinised by the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means whose job it is to certify whether the petitions are proper to be received. The petitioners in this case indicated that central to their case were issues of policy—on national parks—which went far beyond the more limited open spaces issue. At this stage the Secretary of State can put a memorial to the joint chairmen on the question of whether the whole or part of any petition is proper. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State did just that. He asked the joint chairmen not to certify as proper that large part of the petition which was based on matters of policy. This indicated the Government's objection to issues of policy being taken by a joint committee. The joint chairmen disagreed. When this happens the petition must go before a joint committee of both Houses unless within 21 days there is either a resolution of either House that the matter should not

1415
go to a joint committee or there is a resolution in either House that the orders be annulled.
Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, put down a Motion in this House that the orders be annulled. That was followed by a Motion put down in the other place by the honourable Member for Devon West and Torridge and others that the orders should not go to a joint committee. There followed discussions between all the parties involved in Parliament who reached agreement that the right procedure would be to take the orders to a joint committee as normally happens automatically under the Act since it was amended in 1965.
As can be appreciated from what I have just said, the question of whether a petition goes to a joint committee is not now decided primarily by the Government of the day. This is contrary to what my noble friend Lord Molson believed and wrote in his recent letter to The Times. If the Government had moved at this stage that the petition be not referred to a joint committee, we would have been criticised for using our powers as—and I quote from Mr. Greenwood in Hansard of 14th November 1945, at col. 2180:
"a weapon with which to beat down opposition or to carry proposals through without due regard to all the interests who ought to be considered".
Mr. Greenwood further said:
"We hope to get on to the Floor of the House discussions which go to the root of Ministerial Orders".
He added at a later stage:
"it must rest with the Government of the day, whatever its complexion, to advise Parliament whether a particular issue raised on a Ministerial Order is or is not one of policy on which the Government may feel bound to use their Parliamentary resources".
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State did make clear that this was a matter of policy, and we are of the opinion that it is of such importance that it should be brought for decision on to the Floor of the House under the procedure provided for in Section 6 of the 1945 Act. Some of your Lordships might not like the present system, but given the only alternatives of a hybrid Bill or special parliamentary procedure I believe even with hindsight we were right to use special parliamentary procedure. This was agreed as the best way forward at that time. The provisions of the relevant Acts have been followed meticulously.
Given the fact that there was a 96-day public inquiry; that there was considerable local consultation; that a right was given to the petitioners to put their case yet again to a joint committee of both Houses, I cannot see how my noble friend Lord Molson can argue that the assurances given to him by Mr. Greenwood have been overturned. It is clear to me that every effort has been made to have this matter fully debated and that the correct procedure was followed. While I respect my noble friend's concern I just wonder whether my noble friend is not in fact more concerned that we used the procedure, for it was none other than my noble friend who, as the then Member for High Peak, tabled a Second Reading amendment to the Bill back in 1945.
Let me say a word on the constitutional custom consistently followed by successive Governments. The House will know that in 1949 the Government of which Mr. Greenwood was a member did bring to the
1416
Floor of both Houses a confirming Bill to change amendments made by the joint committee to the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board Order 1948 because they raised issues of principle. The joint committee has sat 43 times since the 1945 Act. On three occasions before this one they have rejected orders completely. Two of them originated with local authorities, and on the one occasion when a central Government order was rejected. The Minister was so diffident about it that he gave no oral evidence and let petitioners fight it out with witnesses from an existing water board.
I trust your Lordships will all agree that it would not be right to erect a constitutional doctrine from such material. The House has always been able to review the decisions of its committees. If serious matters arise the Floor of the House is the place to deal with them, and judging by the number of noble Lords down to speak today and the number of speakers in the other place, this is a serious matter of considerable interest. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to reconsider his amendment to the Motion. It was his party—although he was not of course personally involved—which published DOE circular 4/76, which contains the now famous statement on roads in national parks. But it was also his party which eight months later published the preferred route for the bypass to the south of Okehampton, acknowledging, in the announcement, that there were national park implications. We agree with their decision. We can see that at Okehampton there are the geographical circumstances of which the circular speaks when saying that there will be exceptions. The inspector saw them too. He gave five grounds for his recommendation for a southern route with which we agreed; and we give prominence to landscape impact which was one of those grounds. The joint committee disagreed and that was their right. But I would have hoped for some consistency from the noble Lord's party. He seems now to be saying that they made the wrong choice in 1976. They were right then to conclude that there was no reasonable alternative means of meeting this compelling need. Having published the preferred route, they drafted and published the orders and set up the pubic inquiry in 1979. They should not be regretting our bringing in this Bill. They should be supporting it.
Many noble Lords who have spoken to me about this Bill have been concerned that we might set a precedent for future roads or other development in national parks. My noble friend Lord Elton is better placed to deal with the general point, but on roads I can give a categorical assurance that we shall not use it in that way. The processes of public inquiry and decision do not allow the facts of one case to justify another.
Lastly. I want to deal with the time necessary to plan and build a northern route, which has emerged as an important issue, especially for the people who live in Okehampton and for Cornwall. No one disputes that it would be possible for a southern route to be completed within three years of Parliament approving it. The dispute lies in the difference between the department's firm statement that a northern route would take nine years to complete and the objectors' advisers who have said since the joint committee hearings that it need only take five years or thereabouts. From what I understand it appears that

1417
their opinions can be challenged. It is based on the views of Mr. Brian Parker, who appeared as a witness for the objectors, and Mr. Singleton, who broadly corroborated what Mr. Parker said. While they both hold respected qualifications, neither has led the design and processing of a national road scheme.
Nevertheless, I do not think they would dispute that it takes—on average—13 years to plan and build a national road project. We wish it could be a lesser period. We have said that pulling out all the stops we might be able to build a northern route in nine years—a significant saving of four years—assuming that the inspector at the inevitable public inquiry did not reject it, as the last one did, and assuming also that none of the land involved was ruled to be de facto open space: a point I referred to earlier. So what has led Mr. Parker into thinking, erroneously, that we might do better than nine years?
If it is the assumption that we could save two years on investigation of route options by going straight for the particular northern route advocated by the petitioners, he is wrong. This route was not as such discussed at public inquiry, though it does consist of parts of some of the 13 variants which were. To do this would be clearly unrealistic, and we could be challenged at public inquiry and in the courts, and rightly so. because we would not have done our homework thoroughly.
That leads me to wonder whether if Mr. Parker also thought that we could save another year by avoiding public consultation of the route options. This is undemocratic as well as unrealistic, given the strong local preference for a southern route. He might have assumed that yet another year could be saved because we have done most of the detailed design for a northern route. We have not. This is evidenced by the fact that the South-West Water Authority drew to our attention only on 18th March this year, and for the first time, that there was some metal contamination in soft ground through which any northern route would go. Naturally, if the detailed design for a road had been undertaken water and soil tests would have been done and we would have known about this possible problem. All we have done is to say that one or other of the northern routes comply with our design standards. The joint committee said that given good will we could proceed quicker. To meet the tighter timetable those entitled to be heard at a public inquiry would either have to forgo their statutory rights voluntarily—which they would not—or be compelled to do so.
The department's south-west road region which comprises the seven counties, including Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, is currently working on over 50 schemes in the national road programme. The staffare fully committed. If we cannot proceed with the proposed scheme at Okehampton, there will inevitably be delays to these schemes as well. The dual carriageway A.30 Okehampton-Launceston scheme would have to be delayed until the line of the western end of the Okehampton bypass was fixed. I shall not be drawn on which other road schemes would suffer, but if we have to divert resources to finding a new route north of Okehampton, suffer they will.
1418
It is entirely proper that we should have been asked to explain and justify these estimated timings for a possible northern route. On the face of it nine years is a long time. Before some of your Lordships point out to me quite correctly that we have just completed the Darlington bypass in eight years and nine months, let me remind the House that the public inquiry lasted two days and that the inspector reported in 14. That, as your Lordships will know if you have spoken to any Devonian, simply will not be the case in this instance. Any northern route would be bitterly fought; in fact, the whole concept of a northern route would be contested with the same vigour as has been deployed against the southern route. I have to advise the House that nine years is a minimum realistic time for a northern route. It would be wrong and cruelly unfair to the people of Okehampton and others affected if the House rejected this Bill in the mistaken belief that a northern route could be completed in less than nine years.
I shall summarise the Government position briefly. We are convinced that the southern route is right. We stand by the general presumption against major through routes in national parks, and we say that this is one of those exceptional circumstances for which DOE circular 4/76 provided when it was drafted because we do not believe that any northern route would be a reasonable alternative means of bypassing Okehampton. We do not apologise for presenting the Bill. We still believe it was the right course. It is right that Parliament should decide this important matter and I ask the House to allow the swift passage of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
3.47 p.m.
Lord Molson Lord Molson rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now considered on Report, to leave out all the words after ("that") and insert ("this House declines to proceed further with the Bill because it contravenes assurances given by the Lord Privy Seal in the House of Commons during the passage of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill 1945 in two separate respects (H.C. Debates, 14th November 1945, vol. 415, cols. 2180, 2181), the constitutional custom consistently followed by successive governments up to December 1984 and circular 4/1976 issued by the Department of the Environment; and overrides the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee's Special Report on the Orders (H.L. 131, 1984–85.).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have drafted my amendment in very firm terms in order to draw attention to the important constitutional issue involved. If your Lordships pass this Bill unamended—and you can hardly amend it—it will create a precedent going to the root of special parliamentary procedure and infringing a custom maintained for 40 years. Never before have parliamentary majorities been used to over-rule the recommendations of a Joint Select Committee on a petition of general objection. Of course your Lordships have the power to do so, but I believe that you would want to be aware of what you are doing with its implications for the rights of the individual.
I was fairly confident of my facts, having taken an active part in the debates and negotiations about this matter ever since 1945, but in order to be sure of my ground I took the most authoritative advice available to me, as I was entitled to do, and I have obtained their confirmation that there is no precedent for this Bill.
In order to explain this special parliamentary procedure I have to go back a long time; and in addition it is a complex subject. I have been at pains (writing my speech about three times over) to be as concise as possible. However, it is impossible to be very brief in going back to 1845 and, in greater detail, to 1945. Before 1845, every infringement of a private right required a statute. It was agreed in that year that in the modern world that procedure would have to be brought up to date. A complicated system of ministerial orders was introduced, usually requiring a very brief confirming statute.
When war came in 1939 the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act was passed, and in the following years of a siege economy we were ruled by orders made thereunder. There was no opposition to that: we accepted it as necessary in time of war. There was in fact virtually no opposition, except that of two distinguished ex-Ministers. They both spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, always in an entirely patriotic spirit. One was the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the other was the late Lord Winterton. I am afraid we rather irreverently nicknamed them after a popular play running at the time, Arsenic and Old Lace.
It was left to us, the Conservative Back-Benchers Committee, to scrutinise the stream of ministerial orders under which we were governed. We did not object, in wartime, to the Government's dictatorial powers, but we wanted to know in the case of each order, first, what these orders meant, and, secondly, in what spirit the wide powers taken would in fact be exercised. For example, when rationing limited the cost of a meal to five shillings, it was important to define also a snack and refreshment. Such were the complexities of the time.
Those orders could not be amended. Our only way of proceeding was to move a prayer to annul them. We did so fairly regularly after the normal hour for the House of Commons to adjourn. I do not think we ever divided the House against an order, but the Whips kept a sufficient number of loyal supporters to defeat us if we had ever divided. Whips in that House will be familiar with the technique. That taught us the power of a Government with a substantial majority.
This necessarily arbitrary procedure by the Government in wartime under defence regulations did not take much account of private interests. Necessary and accepted as it was in wartime, it was not, of course, tolerable for peacetime, and so both Governments fully recognised. This they did by introducing the Statutory Order (Special Procedure) Bills of 1944 and 1945. The first was introduced by the Conservative Attorney-General, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, affectionately known to your Lordships as Lord Kilmuir. After the victory in 1945 of the Labour Party, it was re-introduced almost unaltered by Herbert Morrison. It is clear, therefore, that this was never a party issue. However, we, the Back-Benchers,
1420
scrutinised the Bill carefully because it introduced a new and permanent procedure for protecting private rights in a way broadly analogous to Private Bill procedure. It is invoked by many statutes and is therefore of great importance for the liberty of the subject.
If we welcomed the Bill, your Lordships may ask, what was its principle and why did we scrutinise it so carefully? It provided that ministerial orders invading private rights should, in suitable cases, be treated like Private Bills; that is to say, sent upstairs to be examined by a Joint Select Committee which would hear counsel and see witnesses. The Bill wisely made separate provision according to the nature of the petitions against orders. The Bill distinguished, first, petitions for amendment, and, second, petitions of general objection. These last were generally in the form of raising a matter of principle, as the name indicates.
Under the 1945 Act they would only go to a Joint Select Committee if either House so resolved. Petitions for amendment would go automatically to a Joint Select Committee for detailed examination and amendment. The difficulty of getting a petition of general objection upstairs to a Joint Select Committee led to much criticism. In Henry Brook's time, and after careful examination, the 1965 Act was passed to reverse (shall I say?) the general assumption. Instead of a resolution being needed to send a petition of general objection to a Joint Select Committee, it was to go there automatically unless a resolution to the contrary was passed.
Reverting to the 1945 Act, our relations with the Labour Government of the time were friendly all through our private negotiations. In fact, throughout the proceedings Arthur Greenwood kept referring to me as his honourable friend having apparently forgotten that in the general election of 1945 I and my friends had been relegated to the Opposition Benches. When accepting our most important amendment at the Report stage, Mr. Greenwood said that it had been skilfully drafted. Many of your Lordships will realise that that meant that it had been drafted for me under his instructions by parliamentary counsel. No amendment is ever praised by the Government of the day unless it has been drafted by parliamentary counsel.
If we welcomed the Bill, your Lordships may well ask: what, then, was all the debate about? In one sentence, the issue at stake then and that today was the same. We wanted an assurance that a majority in the Commons would not be used to deprive or limit the rights of private interests to have their case judged by an impartial Joint Select Committee which had heard the case stated in a judicial atmosphere upstairs. In principle that was handsomely conceded by the Lord Privy Seal. I put the point to him on 14th November 1945 (at col. 1167) when I said:
"I would ask the Lord Privy Seal to give an undertaking now that this Government at any rate—and if they set an example, perhaps other governments will follow it—will not use their majority as a 'bulldozer' in order to prevent petitioners from having a fair opportunity of having their case heard in a judicial atmosphere upstairs".
I break the sequence of my statement at this point to remark that that unfortunately is precisely what some

1421
honourable Members in another place sought to do at an early stage, to prevent the Okehampton bypass being considered by a Joint Select Committee. I shall revert to that later.
To return to my recital, the Lord Privy Seal replied to me in the same column:
"I cannot speak for any future government, least of all for a government drawn from the opposite benches, but I can speak for His Majesty's present Government. I do not want to mince my words at all, and I give the most explicit assurance that we do not regard this bill as a weapon with which to beat down opposition or to carry proposals through without due regard to all the interests who ought to be considered. I think it would be wrong to use the bill in that way. and so long as this Government continues, I can assure Hon. Members that this specific pledge which I have given will be honoured to the full".
And so it was! Not only so; it has been honoured by the Labour Party ever since. I had occasion to raise this matter in a particularly difficult connotation with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, when he was Leader of the House and with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, his Chief Whip. That was in connection with the Meldon Reservoir.
I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time by dealing with the interesting legal technicalities arising out of Standing Orders. Suffice it to say that the noble Earl took a broad view. He withdrew the order, secured an amendment of the Standing Orders to give locus standi to amenity societies and so gave full effect to another sentence in Arthur Greenwood's speech. He thereby made sure that the issue involved would go in a new order before a Joint Select Committee; and it did.
So much for the general constitutional convention; but does it apply in this case? Arthur Greenwood was an experienced statesman and, as I have said, we had discussed the whole problem in private. Consequently, he put in a reservation which we thought perfectly reasonable. After giving the general assurance that I have quoted he went on to say (at col. 2180):
"it must rest with the Government of the day, whatever its complexion, to advise Parliament whether a particular issue raised on a Ministerial Order is or is not one of policy on which the Government may feel bound to use their Parliamentary resources in support of their own point of view".
He meant that the Government of the day must retain the right to legislate to sustain a ministerial order—and here I quote his words, with one or two left out, but not altering the meaning—
"where national policies are involved … or imperilled or embarrassed".
Can it be said that this Bill is justified under that reservation because a national policy is imperilled?
It is quite the contrary. This Bill contradicts national policy as stated by the Department of the Environment's Circular No. 4 of 1976, which says in summary—and I shall quote, again leaving out a few words—
"no new route for long distance traffic should be constructed through a national park…unless it has been demonstrated that there is a compelling need which would not be met by any reasonable alternative means".
The Joint Select Committee which has gone into this matter has found that a northern route offers "a reasonable alternative means".
This Bill does not preserve a national policy; it contravenes it. If one of my noble friends says that
1422
Circular No. 4 of 1976 was issued by a Labour Government and does not bind a Conservative Government, I would say that the circular only repeats in rather bureaucratic language the policy laid down by my noble friend Lord Stockton when Minister of Housing and Local Government. I am tempted to quote his words which I have here, but I do not want to be too long and the House will accept my assurance that he took exactly the same line.
When, in December 1984, I learnt that some honourable Members in another place had put down an Early Day Motion to use the 1965 Act to by-pass the normal Joint Select Committee procedure I approached my noble friend the Leader of the House and I explained the important constitutional principle at issue. He said, "Leave it in my hands". I knew they were very good hands and I was perfectly content—and justifiably so. A few days afterwards the Early Day Motion disappeared from the Order Paper of the House of Commons.
My noble friend has a remarkable entity. I would say with all reverence that he resembles the Holy Trinity, but it is in a humbler way. He is Deputy Prime Minister; he is Leader of your Lordships' House; and he is the Lord President of the Council. In which capacity he acted to secure the withdrawal of that Early Day Motion, I do not know. Anyway, he was at unity in himself. But is he still?
After the Joint Select Committee had come to a decision adverse to the Ministry of Transport, I heard a rumour that it proposed to introduce this Bill. I accordingly approached my noble friend again. This time I got a more guarded reply. This time it was not, "Leave it in my hands", but, "I will see the Secretary of State and write to you again". The analogy I venture to draw between my noble friend and the Deity breaks down at this point. He is not omnipotent! I have had a most courteous letter from him defending the Government's policy in introducing this Bill. I will not take time to answer him now, but he has not convinced me. I have the authority of two successive Ministers in charge of what is now the Department of the Environment that if a Minister feels that an order is so fundamental to his policy that he would use legislation to have his way, it would not be right to allow petitioners to go to a Joint Select Committee and, if they won, to reverse the decision by legislation since that would involve petitioners in a waste of money. In this case it amounts to nearly £50,000.
Let no one say to me that I asked for the matter to be referred to a Joint Select Committee. Of course I did, but it did not occur to me at that time that if the decision of the committee went against the Government they would introduce legislation overruling the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. I think this is a matter of straightforward dealing. I feel entitled to ask: at what moment of time did the Secretary of State decide that he would not abide by an adverse decision of the Joint Select Committee and treat its proceedings as an elaborate and costly charade? He can choose on which horn of the dilemma he wishes to sit. Did he never intend to accept the opinion of the Joint Select Committee or did he decide to overturn it when it was adverse to his wishes? An apologist for the Secretary of State said to me that he had probably regarded it as a gamble which

1423
he hoped to win. I should not willingly make a wager with a man if I thought the other party intended to take up the stakes if he won but to invoke the laws against gaming if he lost.
My noble friend referred once more to the so-called precedent of the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Authority, cited by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. It is not a precedent. It was a petition of amendment and not a petition of general objection; and so it went before the committee and was amended. The Government accepted all the amendments except two, and on one of those your Lordships stood firm and the Government accepted a compromise.
I have only one more argument to adduce, and I am glad to think that we have again had an assurance from my noble friend Lord Caithness that perhaps it will not be used to our disadvantage in the future. If, in breach of Circular 4 of 1976, the sanctity of Dartmoor can be infringed, that creates a precedent for roads through other national parks. What about the Lake District? What about the High Peak of Derbyshire, which I represented in another place for 22 years? We have had an assurance, and naturally I accept any assurance that comes from my noble friends on the Front Bench. But before hearing that, I asked this question, which I regard as relevant: are those other national parks to be transfixed by trunk roads?
I am deeply grateful to your Lordships for the customary courtesy with which you have listened to an unduly long speech; but covering 40 years of this established procedure with which I have been familiar all the way through, and involving, as it does, the liberty of appeal of the private interest, my speech could not be brief. If my longevity has served no other useful purpose, it has at least enabled me to recall in 1985 the circumstances in which this procedure was inaugurated in 1945. I beg to move my amendment.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now considered on Report, to leave out the words after ("that") and insert ("this House declines to proceed further with the Bill because it contravenes assurances given by the Lord Privy Seal in the House of Commons during the passage of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill 1945 in two separate respects (H.C. Debates, 14th November 1945, vol. 415, cols. 2180, 2181), the constitutional custom consistently followed by successive governments up to December 1984 and circular 4/1976 issued by the Department of the Environment; and overrides the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee's Special Report on the Orders (H.L. 131, 1984–85).").—(Lord Molson.)
4.20 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now considered on Report, at end to insert ("but that this House regrets the decision of the Government to introduce this Bill, and urges the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Dartmoor National Park authority, to provide adequate compensation to the authority, both financial and in kind, to provide suitably for loss of amenities and land.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think there is one point on which there will be unanimity among your Lordships; that is, that there is need for a bypass for
1424
Okehampton. I know the area fairly well, as I have a son who lives only a few miles west of Buckfastleigh and just a few miles from the moor. But I want to be thoroughly honest with the House. I have not had the opportunity to walk over the route. I was at Exeter over the last two days, but to walk over the route at ten or eleven o'clock at night would not have shown me what I wanted to see.
We must recall that a bypass was included in the county development plan for Devonshire way back in 1964—that was a northern route—and a bypass for Okehampton has been in the national road building programme since 1968. I have always held that one cannot divorce transport matters from the environment and I am pleased that the noble Earl himself stressed that point in his opening remarks.
We have the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and, whatever one's views may be upon his amendment, I think the whole House will appreciate the clarity with which he put his case and also the firm independence that he has shown on this matter over such a long period. I hope that the debate will cover not only the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and of course the Government Minister's speech, but also the amendment in my name.
When the Statement was repeated in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on 26th July about the Government's intention to bring forward such a Bill I stated that when a Bill was presented it would be contested on non-political and all-party grounds. That view was endorsed heartily by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and by a number of other noble Lords. This is clearly not a party issue and, by the very nature of the Bill, it can be clearly seen that it is not a Bill that one can amend in itself.
Faced with the convention, both held and strongly observed by the Benches on which I sit, that we do not vote against any basic principle determined by the other House, we have decided that our Front Bench spokesmen will be encouraged to abstain on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson.
However, we recognise that there are strongly held opinions on the matter—on procedure, on constitution and on environmental grounds—and that it would be wrong to do other than say to all other than our Front Bench, who we hope will abstain, that they have a completely free vote to determine, according to their own consciences and the strength of the arguments, whether or not they should support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I want to make that absolutely clear to the House. That is the reason for my amendment, which expresses deep regret that the Government have brought forward this Bill.
In commenting on the Statement when it was presented prior to the Summer Recess, I suggested that it would be extremely helpful if noble Lords read the report of the debate to annul the orders, which had been initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on 3rd December last year, during which debate some of the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, today were covered. I hope that many noble Lords will have read the report of that debate in the weeks since the Statement was made to us.
I know, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has said, that there is still considerable concern at what seems to be setting aside the principle of the Department of the Environment's Circular No. 4 of 1976. I shall not repeat what that circular stated, but I hope noble Lords will remember clearly the words expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I also hope that everybody stands by the principle of that circular. As the noble Lord. Lord Molson, has said, any departure from the principle of that circular is a precedent which could be used by any government in the future in connection with any other national park. Therefore, it is a very important statement in the circular.
Reference has been made to the decision of the Labour Government in 1976. As I have said on previous occasions, I was not a member of that Government, though I supported it. But we had not had the public inquiry then; the public inquiry was not set up until 1979 and did not report until 1983. We had not had the setting up of the Joint Select Committee when that decision was taken. It is clear that there is an alternative to the southern route. There is the northern route. As I have already mentioned, that was in the Devon county development plan back in 1964, and it seems that it was not until around 1973–74 that there was any thought given to a possible southern route which might traverse in some degree the national park.
In the debate in your Lordships' House on 3rd December 1984 the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said at col. 1158 of the Official Report:
"Decisions on the best routes for bypasses are only taken after the most careful study. Alternative possible routes to the north and to the south…were examined in some detail.".
If those words mean anything, they mean that the department had details of a possible alternative—the noble Earl shakes his head—and therefore the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was not correct in the statement he made that,
"Alternative possible routes to the north and to the south were examined in some detail.".
In the Third Reading debate on this Bill on 19th November, the Secretary of State said at col. 140 of the Commons Official Report:
"I emphasise that we are promoting the southern route because we believe it is environmentally superior. It is my firm conviction that, in an area as unique as the countryside round Okehampton, environmental factors must not only have high priority, but must be the priority.".
That is a definite statement made by the Secretary of State. That statement surely dismisses some of the snide comments that have been made about environmentalists and conservationists.
But the Secretary of State's view, and the Government's policy on the southern route, are challenged by many competent authorities. Ten actually petitioned against, and I was very pleased to see that such is the respect in which some of these authorities are held that in The House magazine of 11 th November there was an article from the Council for National Parks, another one from the Countryside Commission and another from the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Those bodies were considered sufficiently responsible for accounts of their activities to be given in The House magazine of
1426
11th November. Therefore, the objections have not been irresponsible or made by irresponsible persons.
Clearly, the Dartmoor National Park Authority, whose duty is absolutely clear, is opposed to the southern route. So, also, is the Countryside Commission, which is the Government's own statutory body with members appointed by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales and funded by a grant from the DoE. What docs the Countryside Commission say? It says:
"The Commission has confirmed that the area which would be affected by the southern route is of national park quality. The landscape which would be affected by the northern route is not of national significance, nor is it comparable in quality with that south of the town within the national park".
But what do the Government do? Instead of having regard to the views of their own Countryside Commission, they accept the views only of the department's own Advisory Committee on the Landscape and Treatment of Trunk Roads. I sec no reference to the Government's consideration of the views of the Countryside Commission.
I am not arguing against the propriety of the Government in bringing forward this confirmation Bill. Despite the clarity and eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, we accept that there is provision to the effect that if the Government of the day cannot support a Joint Select Committee's report, there is this confirmation Bill procedure.
But what should the Government do about a Joint Select Committee report? As has been emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the Government had to go back 36 years, back to 1949, to find some justification and precedent for what they are doing now. Surely it is ridiculous to refer an issue to a Joint Select Committee and then completely to ignore its conclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was a member of the Joint Select Committee, and he dealt with this in his brief comments on the original statement. I am sure that my noble friend will amplify his comments when he speaks later today.
I appreciate that it is not in order to quote speeches made in the other place, other than those of Ministers. Therefore I shall transpose one particular speech. I hope noble Lords have read the debate in the other place of 19th November and in particular the speech of Mr. Peter Rost, Conservative Member for Erewash, who was chairman of the Joint Select Committee. Noble Lords may now, if they wish, refer to cols. 182 to 186 of the Hansard report of that day. Mr. Rost said that if the DoE had followed its own circular of 1976, a reasonable alternative to the northern route would have been completed long ago and Okehampton's frustrations would have been cleared up many years ago.
Mr. Rost complained of some attempts to discredit the joint committee and said that the committee's view had been misinterpreted and denigrated. He claimed that it was unacceptable that the joint committee was held to be less important than the public inquiry. Mr. Rost complained also that it is not generally understood that a great deal of new evidence was presented to the Joint Select Committee. He said that the inspector had submitted his report and had said that his decision was a finely balanced one. Mr. Rost commented that the inspector might well have

1427
changed his mind and made the decision the other way if he had heard the new evidence that had been presented to the Joint Select Committee.
Mr. Rost said that when the joint committee weighed up the pros and cons the members came to the independent judgment that there was no reason whatever why the alternative northern route should not be developed. The chairman of the Joint Select Committee, Mr. Rost, referred to the dilemma facing Members of Parliament. There was a conscience as to the wider issues of national policy on environment, open space and national parks, and against that the frustration of the delay of some 20 years.
The Secretary of State has repeatedly made much play of consultation with local people and the views of local authorities. He also said in the debate of 19th November, at col. 141 of the Official Report that,
"the damage incurred in going north of Okehampton on any of the 13 possible variants of a northern route would be greater".
But those who know the area like the back of their hand have stressed in debates in both Houses that this view is not accepted and that there is no physical barrier whatever to prevent the road going to the north. As a democrat, I accept that a majority is a majority, but the Secretary of State should be very careful in claiming that there is an overwhelming local view. Devon County Coucil voted 38 for the southern route. By the way, I was at a lunch yesterday with the present chairman of Devon County Council, and so I think my facts are right. It voted 38 for the southern route, 34 for the northern route, with four abstentions—a decision taken as recently as 25th July.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, can the noble Lord compare those figures with the normal voting figures on Devon County Council, taking into account the fact that the Alliance have recently become the majority party? Will he compare the figures he has just given with the normal voting pattern on Devon County Council? Otherwise he may have given a misleading impression to the House.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, what I am going to give are the figures on this particular issue. That is the only one with which we are concerned. I am not concerned with decisions taken by Devon County Council on any other matter, whether a month ago or two years ago. As I emphasised, this is not a party issue. My noble friends here have completely free votes. The Front Bench will abstain because of our propriety of not voting against a decision of the other House.
This decision of the county council was taken despite all the influences brought to bear through the department and Ministers. Even the Okehampton Town Council voted only by 10 to six for the southern route. These are the elected local people. The Secretary of State has referred to the strength of the survey of the people of Okehampton which has been conducted. But, again, what are the figures? I am a democrat and I accept majorities, but let us have a look and see what the figures mean. In a questionnaire, 55 per cent. favoured the southern route, with 45 per cent. against. One thousand and thirty people completed the questionnaire out of a population in Okehampton of 3,500. My elementary mathematics
1428
tells me that is a majority of 100 people—not exactly an overwhelming view of local opinion.
Many noble Lords will have received masses of briefs, documents and papers of all kinds on this issue. Perhaps I may refer in particular to the document received from ROAMR—Residents of Okehampton Against the Moorland Route. Nothing could be more local than that particular opinion. The secretary, and a resident in the town, Dr. Bill Hunter, forwarded a five-page statement setting out the case against the southern route. It was a powerful case based on the history of the matter and the nature of the area affected.
Emphasis has been laid by the Secretary of State and also by the noble Earl today on the possible delay if we do not proceed with the southern route. The noble Earl referred to the position of Mr. Parker. Perhaps I may quote one statement made by Mr. Parker. He said:
"I trust that pride in professional independence and concern for good planning and good engineering practice rule my judgment".
Mr. Parker, who is a highly qualified independent road engineer, has said that further delay need be not more than two years and a bit. Noble Lords may recall, as it has been mentioned previously, that the Countryside Commission questioned this figure and asked a reputable firm of engineers, Denis Wilson and Partners, who are consulting engineers and transport planners, to check that statement. The firm did so and confirmed it.
The question of a bypass is naturally of great concern to the people of Okehampton. It is of concern to the hundreds and thousands of people who travel each year on holiday and go through Okehampton, or try to go through Okehampton, as I know to my cost. It is also a matter of concern with regard to the position of commercial vehicles. But the matter is one of great concern, too, for the environment and for the protection of our heritage. That must be kept in mind.
The joint committee gave attention to the problem of a possible delay if the northern route were now adopted. The joint committee said that the mistake made in the past by switching to the southern route should not now be insisted upon by continuing on that basis. The Select Committee decision would correct that error. The chairman of the committee has said that we must not now be asked to take the easy option of deciding to go through the park when a route may go through the northern alternative way. That is the problem before us. The easy way out is to accept the southern route despite the precedents that are being created.
I can understand the concern of Cornwall County Council about its unemployment problem. I can understand the concern of the haulage contractors. But perhaps I may take a short while to quote a letter which other noble Lords may have received from the driver of a heavy goods vehicle, a Mr. John Luce, who lives near Chard in Somerset. He states:
"Whichever [route] is built will be there for good, and if short-term considerations result in the wrong choice, its advantages will very soon be forgotten".
That is the issue which faces your Lordships this afternoon. Mr. Luce puts seven points, but I will repeat only two of them:

1429
"A northern route would intersect all radial roads and therefore offer a complete and wholly effective bypass. A southern route intersects none; all traffic commuting north/-east/-west will continue to go through the town".
He adds as his fourth point:
"Both routes rise to over 850 ft. but are not affected by the same weather. The northern route lies across part of the West Devon plateau which though exposed is not high enough to influence its weather pattern significantly. The southern route mounts the main mass of Dartmoor, running less than two miles of the 2,000 ft. peaks, and is subject to the notorious Dartmoor weather: it is often affected by fog and ice and snow when the plateau to the north remains clear. Above all, it would attract heavy snowdrifting, which on a north face would thaw only very slowly, as I know from having lived in the area".
Those are the views of a heavy goods vehicle driver.
I conclude by reminding your Lordships of what was said by the Secretary of State—and I have already quoted him in part—at col. 140:
"Environmental factors must not only have high priority, but must be the priority [and] if I had believed that the balance of environmental interest favoured any of the northern alternatives, I would not be here today presenting the Bill".
On the evidence that has been presented, I believe that the Government ought to withdraw this particular Bill. Although we are unable, for the reasons I have mentioned, to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, our Back-Bench Members will have a completely free vote. My amendment regrets that the Government have introduced this Bill, but it also declares that if it is the wish of Parliament that the Bill should go through, adequate compensation, both financial and in kind, should be made to the Dartmoor National Park Authority following consultation with that authority. I believe that other noble Lords will be dealing with this matter, but I wish to emphasise that I am moving this in a non-political manner and that all our Back-Bench Members will have complete freedom of conscience on this particular issue.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, at an early stage in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, pointed out that views are very strongly held on this matter. I am among those who feel very strongly indeed about this Bill. The noble Lord also made it clear that for his Benches there would be freedom to decide what Members wished to do at the end of this debate. I should make it clear that although I speak from the Alliance Benches, I am speaking for myself and I am not committing any of my noble friends to the views which I hold.
The procedures to which the Government have resorted in pursuit of their determination to adopt the southern route have been masterfully dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I say at once that I share the case on and the objections to the southern route which have been extremely clearly put to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I shall try not to repeat what has already been said and will confine myself to some of the environmental issues involved. I wish mainly to speak to matters of principle.
It is only right that your Lordships should know that every one of the constituent member bodies of the Council for National Parks of which I have the privilege of being president is strongly of the view that the Government's decision to adopt the southern route for the bypass is wrong. I may add that every other
1430
organisation concerned with environmental and conservation issues of which I am aware, from the Countryside Commission down (and its views have been retold to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill), is of the same opinion.
Your Lordships may wonder why it is that the council's 35 constituent member bodies representing a wide spectrum of interests, by no means all of them—in fact, most of them not—specially focused on the problems of Dartmoor, should be of one mind and hold the same view so strongly. It is because this bypass is regarded not as a local matter but as a national issue. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made it clear in his opening speech that whichever way the bypass goes, it will be a key element in the national network. By the same token that both he and the Government regard it as being a national issue, so do we.
A key principle bearing on this matter was established by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford (he is my noble friend, except on these occasions), whom I am so pleased to see in the House, in chapter 15 of his report on the national parks published in 1974.I shall not quote that report again because it was spelt out in the Government circular 4/1976, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson referred, and it was endorsed by another Government circular in 1977. It should in my submission hold good in this instance. The key words in what the circular has to say are "a compelling need" and "any reasonable alternative means".
Those of us who are opposed to this Bill agree with the Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament that in this instance, whereas the need for a bypass is certainly "compelling", one of the northern routes—which I believe is labelled "M"—is, all things considered, a "reasonable" alternative. Environmental considerations apart, it is well worth bearing in mind that which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had to say about the advantages for locally-sited industrial traffic if the northern route were adopted—advantages that would be denied by the southern route.
The objections to a northern route have been powerfully advocated, and I am sure your Lordships are only too aware of it through lobbying outside this House. They were also powerfully made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his opening speech. No doubt other noble Lords will extend those objections in the course of this debate. It seems to me that we have to make a choice not only between alternative routes but also between conflicting principles. Should the principle be that of expediency or that of cost? I understand that the northern route would cost more, to the tune of perhaps £5 million. If this is so, in a matter of national importance involving a key element, as the noble Earl said, I cannot bring myself to believe that the sum of £5 million, considerable though it is, is an insurmountable and unacceptable cost to the Department of Transport's budget.
Should the principle be that of protecting farming and land-owning interests, or of avoiding further delay in solving what is undoubtedly a serious traffic problem? We have heard the figures on the extra time required to start now on the northern route. Some fantastic figures have been bandied around in the propaganda which we have recieved. A period of up to 13 years has been suggested. We have heard the noble

1431
Earl's conservative estimate of nine years. We are told that the southern route would take four years less. I put it to your Lordships that in an issue that is a matter for perpetuity and for irreversible decision, a further delay of four years in a lifetime and for posterity could be tolerated—all the more so because there is a southern holiday route which is coping not too badly with holiday traffic at the moment. Alternatively, should it be the principle underlying the creation of national parks; the integrity of certain areas especially designated for their natural beauty, the peacefulness they provide and the opportunities for recreation with access for the public to enjoy all these values?
There may, or there may not, be fewer votes for this latter principle in the short term; let us say, in the run-up to the next general election. But the time is not far off when conservation will be an important election issue. I have no doubt how future generations will judge a government which had chosen to erode the national heritage on grounds of expediency.
We have certain precedents in this matter. There was the construction of the A.66 through the northern part of the Lake District in 1973 to shorten the journey of heavy goods traffic from the M.6 to the coastal industries of Cumbria. No one who knew the Lake District before that road was constructed and who is familiar with the Lake District today could possibly deny the irreversible damage wrought by that decision for the sake of less than an extra hour's driving time round the northern fringes of the park.
Some of your Lordships may recall the powerful argument advanced against encroaching on the northern flanks of the Carneddau peaks in the Snowdonia National Park at about that time to build an expressway which would relieve the congestion along the North Wales coastal road. Those arguments in that case happily prevailed. Your Lordships who remember those precedents will point out that neither is exactly similar to the case of the Okehampton bypass, but the underlying principle is the same. Incidentally, the A.66 case—I hope the noble Lord will not shake his head—gave urgency to the formulation of policy contained in his report on the national parks.
In announcing his decision on 14th October, Mr. Nicholas Ridley underplayed the effect on Dartmoor, calling it a very slight incursion. At the same time he magnified the impact of the northern route, describing it as a scar across the rolling countryside. It has been claimed that the southern route is somehow environmentally more attractive and superior to the northern route. I regard that, without respect to persons, as preposterous nonsense. No one who cares about the environment and conservation of our beauty places can possibly contemplate a motorway, let alone listen to or watch the movement on it, and call it in any way environmentally attractive. The fact is that the southern route will be a permanent, noisy intrusion on the southern landscape, within sight and hearing of many of the citizens of Okehampton, day and night, and it will run cheek-by-jowl with the southern fringes of the town.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, dealt most effectively with the claim that the citizens of Okehampton and the inhabitants of Devon,
1432
represented by the county council and the town council, prefer the southern route. He dealt with the point that a significant minority feel strongly that the southern route should not be the route taken. The fact is that Mr. Ridley has persuaded his Cabinet colleagues to damage and diminish the Dartmoor National Park. I would say that our national parks are too small to justify this kind of erosion.
Erosion means compromise and I am tempted—and I shall not resist the temptation—to mention some words of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, who was mentioned in a Starred Question last week by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in another environmental context, and who is deeply loved and respected on all sides of your Lordships' House. As Mr. Harold Macmillan, in 1952 when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government and the designation of the national parks was beginning, he said:
"In those areas which are designated as national parks, amenity and access are to be given an overriding position".
"Overriding"—an unambiguous, unequivocal and uncompromising adjective. There should be no compromising with that dictum; for each compromise reduces the unique value which each national park represents to the nation and for posterity. Each compromise provides a precedent for further damaging development.
Sadly, proofs of this latter objection to compromise abound over the years from 1952, and increasingly during the past decade, through the increased defence training activities, through industrial and agricultural demands, through commercial afforestation, water storage schemes, mineral extraction, and the growing pressures of the tourist industry. Arguably most damaging of all is road construction; a lot of it allied to one or other of those factors that I have mentioned.
Where do we draw the line? Is it not time to call a halt? Should not the Okehampton bypass case be the ne plus ultra against further incursions and scars on our national parks? By a peculiar irony the decision to introduce this Bill coincides with the Countryside Commission's campaign to draw public attention to, and elicit more concern among the public for, our national parks. It falls, too, in International Youth Year in which emphasis has been placed on the importance, especially for young people, of access to more open spaces. Some of your Lordships may have seen, or been aware of, the lobby of young people in connection with International Youth Year about a fortnight ago in the Palace of Westminster. It coincides, too, with a changing public attitude in regard to the excess of certain agricultural products, some of which are produced in that rolling countryside of Mr. Ridley's emotive phraseology.
On all those grounds, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I believe that the Government have made a serious blunder in preferring short-term expediency to abiding principle. I believe that they will diminish not only Dartmoor but their own credibility as a political party which gives a high place for conservation when issues of rural land use arise.
My final words are these. It gives me no pleasure whatever to say what I have just said. My council has been happy to give credit to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for its successful efforts to persuade our EC partners to give importance to

1433
conservation in restructuring the agricultural directives. But this Bill illustrates the continuing need to co-ordinate the policies of all Government departments, including the Department of Transport, when conservation of the rural environment arises.

UNESCO: British Membership
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place about the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation. The Statement is as follows:
"Britain played a prominent part in the creation of UNESCO. We continue to support the ideals and objectives contained in its consititution. But the House will be aware of the Government's long standing doubt about the effectiveness with which UNESCO has been pursuing them. Among our concerns are the degree to which its work has been harmfully politicised; the organisation has been used to attack those very values which it was designed to uphold. Then there has been inefficient management. This has led to programmes which contain vague and meaningless studies, duplication with the work of other agencies, and lack of discrimination in the creation of projects. There have been serious weaknesses in staff management, and excessive expenditure and staffing at the Paris headquarters.
"Although we have put forward firm proposals for reform, and worked hard, particularly at the recent General Conference at Sofia, to secure their adoption, the results in our judgment fall well short of what we believe could justify continued British membership. The Government have therefore decided that the notice to leave given by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in his letter of 5th December 1984 to the Director General will not be withdrawn. The United Kingdom will cease to be a member from 31st December 1985.
"This decision is in no way aimed at the United Nations system as a whole. But we are determined that our support for the UN should be seen as support for effective and efficient organisations. Unfortunately, UNESCO is not such a body.
"We will not be cutting back on international co-operation in the fields now covered by UNESCO. The money saved from our contribution will be used through the aid programme to further educational, scientific and other activities designed to benefit developing countries, particularly in the Commonwealth. In this way there will be more support for education, for the most part to be carried out through the British Council. We have particularly in mind increased allocations for training in this country for students from poor countries in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. In science we shall certainly continue to support the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and the International Geological Correlation Programme, and make other arrangements for
1434
assisting international science, including, for example, programmes in soil and water management in arid and semi-arid countries in Africa. We shall give further details to the House in due course.
"Because of the importance we attach to the underlying principles of UNESCO's work, the Government plan to maintain observer status on the organisation.
"Mr. Speaker, it is sad that an organisation which began with such high hopes and to which this country has contributed so much in the past should have gone so wrong. But we have to deal with what the organisation has become. We must resolutely ensure that the resources saved for the aid programme as a result of leaving UNESCO are spent in the most useful way."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Oram: My Lords, it is appreciated that the noble Baroness is repeating a Statement that has been made in another place, and I thank her for doing so. But is it not a sad and disgraceful announcement that she has had to put before your Lordships? Should we not remember that UNESCO was the result of pioneering efforts in this country under the leadership of Sir Julian Huxley; and should we not remember the long line of distinguished British public servants who have served UNESCO over the years and brought great credit to this country in that organisation? Is it not sad indeed that their work should have had the unhappy outcome announced today?
Is this not yet another example of following meekly behind the United States? Are we not putting ourselves once again in a position of isolation from countries who we call our friends? Is not the action that the Government have announced contrary to the will and advice of our partners in the Commonwealth; and do not our fellow EC members take an entirely different view? Moreover, has not this country's national commission for UNESCO gone on record almost unanimously saying that it would be wrong for this country to withdraw? We should remember that that national commission is composed of scientists and people representing cultural and artistic life in this country who bring a great deal of expertise to the consideration of this matter; and they have distinctly gone on record in opposing what the Government have announced.
I recognise that the organisation has many faults, and they are outlined—I do not accept all of them—in the early part of the Statement. But if it is faulty, is not the responsible action of a leading member of the organisation to stay in and work still further to get the matter put right rather than to walk away from a difficult problem, as the Government now propose to do?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we agree with every word that has been said from the Labour Opposition Front Bench. May I start by saying that we are glad that that part of our UNESCO contribution which is aid money is not simply to be re-swallowed by the Treasury but is to continue in aid? We regret only that it should be bilateral and no longer multi-lateral aid through the United Nations. We can agree with the Government

1435
that UNESCO has gone astray, but organisations do from time to time. Beyond that we agree with the Labour Front Bench that it is a sad, weak, shortsighted and probably thoughtless decision to give up and walk away instead of staying and fighting for the proper reforms.
The Statement said that the decision is not aimed at the United Nations family of organisations as a whole. It may not have been aimed at it, but it certainly hit it. Should not the Government ask themselves who has before left a United Nations organisation and in what circumstances? Should they not also ask themselves who left the League of Nations and in what circumstances? Is this not the beginning of the breakup of the United Nations system? Is it not as serious as that? Is it not a true parallel with the break-up of the League of Nations system? It was a grief to us that it was the United States, our nearest ally, which started this. I believe that it is a disgrace for this country that we should have followed suit.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in what they have said on the Statement both noble Lords have been critical of UNESCO. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that the organisation has many faults—I think that I quote him correctly—and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that it had gone astray. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that the Statement was sad and disgraceful. We would all agree that it is a sad Statement. He referred to the many British people who were involved in the inception of UNESCO. It was a great idea when it was set up, but it is not that kind of an institution today. I cannot accept the charges that the Statement is disgraceful.
Both noble Lords asked a series of specific questions. One was whether we are simply following the American lead. The answer is, of course, no. Our basic aims are similar, but we have throughout adopted a different strategy, and our final decision has been taken independently of the United States. Indeed, there has been no pressure from the United States and there have been no discussions about UNESCO with the United States at ministerial level for several months.
So far as the Commonwealth countries are concerned, as my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has already said, the subject of UNESCO was not raised at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in October and I can confirm that it was not raised at the European Council on 2nd and 3rd December. With regard to other countries, it is for them to make their view plain to us. Indeed, many other countries have worked with us for the reform of UNESCO and in so doing have made it clear that they wish us to stay in. But we have kept and will continue to keep in touch with them, although the decision on whether we should or should not remain in UNESCO is for Britain and for Britain alone. As was indicated in the Statement, we have clear reasons for taking the decision that we took.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as someone who for 40 years has been involved in international cultural cooperation from an academic base, perhaps I may congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the
1436
sensible way in which, in the face of a great deal of political pressure of the kind that the two noble Lords who have spoken from the Opposition Benches represent, they have taken this decision. It will be widely welcomed in the British university, humanistic and scientific worlds. It is a decision that frees for use for genuine co-operation with our friends in the Commonwealth and elsewhere money that was being patently squandered despite all the efforts of Britain to reform this organisation from within. May I say how welcome that is, and how glad we are to learn the content of today's Statement?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Beloff for his intervention. He has, of course, made the points that he mentioned this afternoon on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. He speaks with considerable knowledge and authority on this subject. I thank him for what he has said.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of one factor that has not yet been mentioned—that it was the all-party Foreign Affairs Committee of another place that advised the Government to stay in UNESCO? Is she further aware of the activities of the very Right-wing American organisation, the Heritage Foundation, financed by a number of American millionaires? When she says that this is not a blow at the United Nations institutions as such, is she aware of the fact that that foundation, about 12 months ago, came over to this country and conducted an intensive campaign among Members of Parliament and the media which apparently resulted in a series of articles and programmes hostile to UNESCO?
Is she aware that Mr. Gough Whitlam, the former Australian Prime Minister and ambassador to UNESCO, has recounted in this Palace the activities of that organisation which is very close to the United States President? Is she still convinced that this decision has not been affected by the pressure of official American opinion and the unofficial opinion that is hostile not just to UNESCO but to the whole United Nations ideal?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I was aware of the view that has been expressed by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in another place, and, of course, all these views have been taken into consideration by the Government in reaching their decision. So far as the suggestion of influence from the United States is concerned, I can confirm that there has been no pressure from the United States. So far as the Heritage Foundation is concerned, I can confirm that the Government have had no recent contact with the Heritage Foundation.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that following the United States' withdrawal from UNESCO, private contributions to UNICEF in the United States dropped substantially because of a loss of confidence in the United Nations and confusion between the two names? The United Kingdom Committee for UNICEF of which I am president fears very much that the same thing will happen in this country. Does the Minister not agree that it would be deplorable if UNICEF, which depends on private

1437
contributions and which does such important work for children throughout the world, should suffer in this way? Will she consider giving a commitment that the Government will increase their contribution to UNICEF should it happen that private contributions go down?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am aware of the excellent work that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, does on behalf of UNICEF and, indeed, of what a very admirable organisation that is. I recall referring to it specifically when we had a debate on the United Nations in your Lordships' House only a few weeks ago, when the noble Baroness spoke on behalf of UNICEF. I can assure the noble Baroness and your Lordships that, as I said in repeating the Statement, we remain fully committed to the United Nations system. But this does not mean that it is necessary for us to remain a member of any one of its constituent bodies if we are dissatisfied with its performance. There is no evidence at all of dissatisfaction with what UNICEF is doing. I can only reiterate what I said on an earlier occasion about the value of the work of that organisation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is there not a degree of duplicity in the Government's decision? Is it not the case that it was made clear to UNESCO, to the Commonwealth countries and to the EC countries that the fulfilment of the threat to withdraw was dependent on progress being made? Since very substantial progress has been made on almost all the demands that were made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, can the noble Baroness say what is the justification for ignoring the unanimous conclusions of the Commonwealth, of the all-party Select Committee, as has been said, and yesterday's massive majority in the United Kingdom Commission for UNESCO appointed by the Minister himself? Is there not a degree of betrayal of our friends in this decision announced today?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would not accept for one moment that there has been any duplicity on the part of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has stated that many organisations and many countries have made representations to us. I have answered those points already. As to the reason why the Government have taken the decision to withdraw, this has been fully covered, I believe, in the Statement. It was also set out by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development in another place on 22nd November. But if I wanted to sum up the reasons I would say: over-politicisation, lack of financial stringency, poor management and poor programmes.
Lord Annan: My Lords, may I add my voice to those who support the decision of the Government? It seems to me that we have at last faced the realities of international politics instead of, as so often, wallowing in sentimentalities. Does the noble Baroness agree that when the United States withdrew from UNESCO it was like the firing of an enormously massive shot across the bows of the organisation because of the
1438
tremendous loss of income that it would suffer? Does the noble Baroness agree that in any normal organisation this would have led to major reforms being initiated at once? Would she not agree that, instead, step by step, every position was defended until, finally, some had to be abandoned in the face of opinion, although not very substantial progress was made in reform?
Would the noble Baroness not also agree that in any organisation that had received this kind of shock it would be natural for the head of it to resign or at any rate to indicate that, within a measurable space of time, he would hand over to someone else? Is not the fact that Mr. M'Bow did not do that one very good reason for the Government's decision?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for what he has said He is making somewhat similar points to those that he made about UNESCO when we debated this among other matters in the foreign affairs debate on the Queen's speech. I agree when he says that the reforms that have been instituted in UNESCO have not been substantial enough. On the specific point about Mr. M'Bow, I can only say that we believe that he is responsible for low management standards. It is, however, important to remember what has been said in the Statement about the alternatives to remaining a member of UNESCO; namely, that the money that has been saved from our contribution will be used through the aid programme to further educational, scientific and other activities designed to benefit developing countries, particularly in the Commonwealth.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that the very grave seriousness of the decision announced today is fully understood? Here we have a decision taken—after some delay, it is true, during which arguments have been put forward—which is directed against the activities of the United Nations Organisation. That, in my view, is a very serious development indeed which is out of step with our Commonwealth and other friends in the world. Everyone believes that this represents (as I feel sure that it does), a reflection of the views of the United States in regard to the United Nations which many of us seriously deplore. We have other matters on which, if the actions of our Government were to imitate those of the United States, the situation would be very serious indeed. Take, for instance, the attitude of the United States on the law of the sea, where the whole organisation worked for years to achieve a purpose which was eventually denied by the United States.
If we are to follow this course of opposition, of complaint, of criticism of the United Nations efforts, rather than to improve them and to work with others to ensure that it is put to the best possible use, I believe that this is a moment of very serious concern for all peoples in this country who are genuine internationalists in that they wish to use the international organisation for the benefit of mankind. I believe that a very grave and serious movement of retrograde disgrace is being announced to us this afternoon.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and can only repeat what I have said to other noble Lords who have raised similar points on this Statement: that our decision is a decision of the Government. It is not a reflection of the views of the United States. Nor indeed is this an attack on the United Nations system as a whole. I made this plain in an answer that I gave to an earlier question. Indeed, the Statement itself makes it quite clear. As it says in paragraph 4:
"This decision is in no way aimed at the United Nations system as a whole. But we are determined that our support for the UN should be seen as support for effective and efficient organisations".
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, that it is a sad day that UNESCO is not the same UNESCO as it was when it was established.

Okehampton Bypass (Confirmation of Orders) Bill
5.22 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
The Earl of Iddesleigh: My Lords, I count myself fortunate in having lived in Devon for the greater part of my life. In fact, for the last 35 years my home has been within 19 miles of Okehampton. I confess that I do not travel through Okehampton every week—I do not think that any sane person would unless they had to. But I know the A.30 reasonably well and I also know the country surrounding Okehampton tolerably well. Although I have been a Member of this House for some years, I am known in the West Country as an occasional speaker here. But I think it is significant that I have never before received so many letters as I have in the post in the last few weeks from organisations and individuals on this subject. They have all urged me to come and address your Lordships this afternoon. I needed no urging, because I am convinced that to go south is the right decision. I feel that I must tell your Lordships that the feeling in the West Country is running very high indeed.
Another factor which is of major importance is the attitude of the various local councils. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has already mentioned the comparatively small majority in the last meeting of the county council. But it is a fact that Devon County Council has consistently supported the "go south" policy ever since the consultative process was started. And it is not alone. West Devon District Council, Okehampton Town Council and Okehampton Hamlets Parish Council have been consistently for the southern route. In fact, all 14 local parish councils support this route as well. Surely this House must pay heed to the local views—views from democratically-elected individuals. I have this information from an impeccable local government source.
I am sure that many noble Lords have seen the exhibition staged by the Ministry of Transport either at Marsham Street or at the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors building across Parliament Square. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was there, because I feel that any noble Lord not familiar with the area must surely have been convinced by that exhibition that from a purely visual angle the southern route is far preferable to any of the
1440
(is it 13 or 16?) alternatives to the north. This view is supported by well-known landscape consultants.
But what of the ecology angle? How important are these woodlands on the southern route? I think that we can find the answer to these questions in the report of Dr. D. L. Hawksworth of the Commonwealth Mycological Institute of Kew. This report was used in evidence at the public inquiry in 1979. It is dated 4th April that year and is headed, "Report to the Dartmoor National Park Officer". The aim of the report is to survey the lichen flora of Okehampton district with particular reference to parts that would be affected by a southern route, to assess the ecological continuity in the woodlands, to assess the scientific importance of the park for lichens in a regional and national context, and to consider the probable effects of the bypass route.
In his evidence at the inquiry the Dartmoor National Park officer hardly referred to this very comprehensive report. I imagine that the money by which it was sponsored came from his Dartmoor National Park Committee.
It is of course difficult to paraphrase several sheets of foolscap, but in essence Dr. Hawksworth gives the Revised Index of Ecological Continuity (or RIEC) for the eleven various wooded areas on the southern route. He compares those figures with other areas on Dartmoor. The RIEC scale is from 0 to 100, and the most important areas have figures of 80 to 100. We have examples of Holme Chase and Bekka Falls, which have figures of 100 or 95.
It is interesting that the summary of this report states:
"Calculations of Revised Index of Ecological Continuity of the woodlands examined have values of 0 to 30 suggesting they do not have a sufficiently long history of ecological continuity to make them of outstanding scientific importance for plants and animals of all groups characteristic of ancient woodlands".
Time does not permit me to give the complete summary of conclusions. But it is clearly shown that the southern route will not go through woodlands of national importance. The implications in the report are that these woodland areas are not ancient woodlands, that they are of only limited regional importance, and, anyhow, that the bypass will not seriously affect them.
Your Lordships have heard convincing arguments, and will hear more, in favour of the southern route; few, I feel, that are convincing in favour of any alternative. We in the West Country need this bypass now. We know that we may have to settle for three years' time, but, please, my Lords, any delay longer than three years is totally unacceptable, I believe, to the vast majority of West Country residents.
My final points are in connection with the conclusions of the joint parliamentary committee, which voted by only four votes to two in favour of a northern alternative earlier this year. First, at the 1979 inquiry, between them the farmers on the northern route spent some £ 10,000 to defend their farms. When the result was made known they thought that after many years of planning blight they could safely go ahead with developing their farming activities, and they have done so. Secondly, at the joint parliamentary committee hearing locals were not given the opportunity to object, as they were at the

1441
public inquiry. The reason, of course, is that no one particular northern route is actually fully planned in any way.
Another point is that the joint parliamentary committee was not aware when it met that public open spaces which would be taken by the bypass would be replaced by land bought by the Ministry of Transport, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has already informed this House. The acreage of land provided is greater than the land that will be taken.
Lastly, if a northern route is chosen, it will almost inevitably cross this bog, to which, again, the noble Earl referred, and the disturbance of this bog will, I am told, release the dangerous heavy metal, cadmium, into the local streams and the River Okement. This will cause considerable environmental damage, and this, too, was not known to the joint committee when it sat. If these last two points had been known earlier this year, I wonder whether the joint committee would have voted as it did? I know that these points and others will be enlarged upon by other noble Lords from the west country.
I should like to conclude with a story which I am assured is true and which goes back to 1938 when a farmer to the west of Okehampton—and I honestly do not know whether he was a northern or a southern man—was approached by a surveyor carrying his equipment across his field. The surveyor asked the farmer, who was quietly ploughing his field, whether he could carry out a survey for an alternative road away from the town centre. The farmer replied: "That's all right, you go ahead; but tell me, is it worth finishing the field or shall I take the horses back home to bed?" Do not let us take this horse home to bed tonight and let it rest in its stable for another nine years or more. I strongly urge this House to support the findings of the public inquiry—and I stress the word "public"—and to vote for a southern bypass for Okehampton.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the vigorous voice of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. who has come from Devonshire to support the Bill. The first point which the noble Earl made was the first point that I want to make: that the overwhelming voice of the elected people and bodies from the South-West is a major factor which I am sure all noble Lords will take into account. The only point I would add to the noble Earl's list of county, district and parish councils is that of the 16 Members of Parliament in Devon and Cornwall, 14 are in favour and only two against. In my view, that is a major factor.
As we all well know, the fact is that this bypass is a matter of vital importance to the economy of the south-west, especially Cornwall, and it is for that very reason that the Government are justified in promoting this Bill as a matter of national importance and as part of the completion of the national road network.
I should like to refer briefly to the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, which was published in The Times a couple of days ago. In it he alleged that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Molson is a
1442
wrecking amendment because it declines to approve the Bill. Indeed, if this noble House were to support my noble friend's amendment, it would reverse the Commons decision on the Bill. That would be contrary to the convention of this House, which is that we do not withold approval from legislation approved by the other House.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was very skilful in his footwork in moving around this, and no one could object to his amendment. If the Front Bench sit tight and perhaps he and the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the remainder of his noble colleagues behind him all support my noble friend Lord Molson, it probably would not embarrass the noble Lord as much as it would embarrass us; he would have kept within the convention that the Official Opposition do not oppose the Government. Just how the convention applies to a Private Member's Motion is a matter which I do not think has ever been fully explored. However, it seems that the extremely cogent charge of my noble friend Lord Molson that the Government are being unconstitutional is slightly shaky on its base as to whether he is being constitutional in proposing the rejection of this Bill. Nevertheless, I should like to try to deal with the major points with which we are all very concerned.
I should like to say how much I enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lord Molson, who I have heard very often over the years. I have never heard him in better voice as he marshalled his arguments in such tremendous style; and his very long history, going back to the 1945 Act, and indeed years before, gives him great authority. I recall his fame when he was at Oxford, where he won a First in jurisprudence. Therefore, none of us is suprised that he is able to speak with such compelling authority. It is not so much compelling that it will drive us into the Lobbies on his side, but it compels us to listen to him even though we may not agree—and for myself I do not.
I shall not try to deal with the main points that he made. The major point is that it is a constitutional impropriety for the Government to override the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. My noble friend Lord Molson very fairly quoted passages from the speech of Arthur Greenwood, the Lord Privy Seal, in 1945, in which he said that he did not intend to use this measure to override the private interest. However, he did say that, where it was a matter of national policy in the judgment of the Government, it must then be for the Government to decide whether they should use their parliamentary majority to support that point of view. My noble friend very fairly quoted that particular passage.
The fact is that this is just such a case. I shall leave the matter of precedents to my noble friends on the Front Bench. I do not doubt that, as usual, my noble friend Lord Elton will have all the precedents at his fingertips. However, I think that the 1949 measure is a precedent. I shall let my noble friend deal with that.
Finally, leaving precedents aside, there is no doubt whatever that the opinion of a Select Committee cannot override the opinion of Parliament. At the end of the day the sovereignty of Parliament is absolute. As I said earlier, the case of this bypass has become much more important than the convenience of Okehampton, though goodness knows that must now be a pretty

1443
serious matter. After 17 years of delay the issue has become one of national importance, for the south-west and especially for Cornwall. That is the basic justification for my noble friends on the Front Bench and right honourable friends in another place saying that this is a matter of national policy, and that is why they believed they were justified in using the machinery in the 1945 Act.
Further to my noble friend's charge of rejecting the report of the joint committee, I agree that governments normally accept reports of joint committees, but they are not bound to; and there are some unusual features about this report to which I should briefly like to call attention. The joint committee was set up to consider the compulsory purchase orders for the land required for the southern route where the exchange land proposals were found by the Secretary of State for the Environment to be inadequate. In the event, the Joint Select Committee, having been set up with those terms of reference, concluded that it was deciding whether or not the southern bypass should be built to the south of Okehampton. Indeed, the honourable gentleman who was chairman, Mr. Rossi, said in his speech in the Commons—which has been referred to—that they did regard themselves as a court of appeal. But of course they were not a court of appeal at all. They heard the petitioners against the south route, and they heard the Department of Transport, who were the promoters, in favour; but what they never heard were the interests—the landowners, the farmers, and other interests—on the northern route who would be affected by it going there.
It is no argument to say that the arguments were put forward by the civil servants from the Ministry of Transport. They would have been much stronger arguments if they had come from the interests themselves. They never heard them at all. They cannot be said to have had the full case put before them in the way that the inspector had in his 96 days of inquiry where he had the full force of the interests both to the south and to the north personally represented in front of him. I say to my noble friend that I thought he was rather over-severe in his criticisms of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport with regard to the setting up of the joint committee. I do not see how any government could have known that the Joint Select Committee would have gone so far beyond its original terms of reference as it did.
I make two other limited points with regard to the Select Committee. It was fully considered, as was made plain by Ministers in the Commons debate (but it is worth adding a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh), that in fact within a few months of the joint committee being set up additional land was found—enough to make the exchange for the public open space being taken more than adequate. Therefore, had that been done to start with the Secretary of State for the Environment could have given his certificate and the Joint Select Committee need never have been set up. But of course that is now all water under the bridge.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I apologise, and I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It is of course true that the
1444
Secretary of State has offered in quantity a large acreage of land in replacement of the 23 acres which will be denied by driving the route through the southern route; but has he considered the matter of quality? It is the contention of those who are not at all satisfied with that offer that the quality of the land, in terms of access for the purposes that we understand a national park to stand for, is nothing like so good.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, that evidently is the noble Lord's opinion, and this must remain a matter of opinion. As the whole point is now theoretical and water under the bridge, I should not delay the House in discussing it as we have so many speakers.
I turn to another major point, and that is my noble friend's charge of the breach of Circular 4/76, Roads Through National Parks. Of course we all recognise the immense importance of this strong circular issued by the Labour Government in 1976, which clearly defined a policy against roads through national parks. But I repeat what my noble friend said in his opening speech, that it provided for exceptions where there is a compelling need which could not be met by any reasonable alternative. Those terms of course mean exactly what they say, and at the end of the day it must be a matter of judgment as to whether or not that is made out.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, dealt with this diplomatically, but nevertheless the Labour Government of the day decided that the southern route was the right one to promote, and they then started the process which, as the noble Lord rightly said, went on to public inquiry and all the rest of the procedure which has gone on ever since. But the fact that the Labour Government of the day so decided is some confirmation that the Government of today have probably got their judgment right.
Finally, on the question of compensation to petitioners before the Joint Select Committee, a point my noble friend made and which was implied in Lord Underhill's amendment—
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? There is nothing at all in my amendment referring to compensation to the petitioners. It is compensation to the national parks authority to which my amendment refers
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, all right, we shall leave it at the petitioners. I shall only say that no hardship has been done. In fact, the Joint Select Committee could have awarded costs to the petitioners if it had wanted to, but the petitioners did not apply for costs. Since then a leading member of the petitioners has written to the Secretary of State saying that they would have regarded an offer of money as an insult. No doubt a few other noble Lords besides myself will have read the advertisement today in The Times advising me to vote against the Bill. It indicates that the petitioners are not exactly on the breadline.
I conclude because, much as I should like to continue to debate with my noble friend, the only criticism that I should have thought lies against the Government after 17 years' delay is that the procedural preparation needed for this bypass is much too long, and now is the time to take the decision and

1445
let the road building proceed. I urge noble Lords to support the Government.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment to be moved by my noble friend Lord Underhill, on the supposition that we get that far. If it were not so serious a reality, the matter of the Okehampton bypass might seem to call for the pen of Anthony Trollope himself to do the story full justice. It is indeed an astonishing saga.
The uncertainties which have dogged this matter for almost two decades included of course in the earlier years the uncertainty as to whether or not the railway would abandon its mineral line to Meldon Quarry, followed by the unfortunate illness of the inspector which delayed the report of the public inquiry for years rather than months. But meanwhile Okehampton has suffered, and vehicle drivers have cursed the inadequacy of the A.30 not only in and through the town but also on either side of it. Therefore, one feels that we should now come to a decision.
The uncertainties I have mentioned were not of course the fault of the present Government, but the position in which we find ourselves today, which is at the root of Lord Molson's amendment, stems at least in part, despite protestations, from an uncertain attitude towards national parks as well as to the natural difficulties inherent in the case. I have tried to study the past history of this affair, as well as making the required pilgrimage to Okehampton to see for myself. With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, who seems to have vanished, interesting though it was, the exhibition at the Ministry frankly was not enough. Unless one has been to see for oneself it is not easy to appreciate the finer but important local details.
What might look reasonable on a map may prove a good deal less convincing on the ground. I was much concerned, for instance, to be told that the northern route was to be preferred inter alia because it would provide easy access for heavy goods vehicles serving the small industrial estate to the north of the town. This indeed is a congested area, not ideally situated from any point of view as far as I could judge. But if, as seems likely, the preferred northern route were to go over the proposed Knowle viaduct at a very great height, spanning the deep and narrow valley adjacent to the industrial estate, I fail to see how local industrial traffic would obtain easy access at all.
The Earl of Caithness: Absolutely, my Lords.
Baroness White: My Lords, the Ministers on the Front Bench can see that I am doing my utmost to be entirely fair. The other industrial estate on the Exeter road is far better situated and far better laid out, but that is another matter altogether. That would have acceptable access whichever of the two contested routes were chosen.
Taking the southern route, when I saw from the map how close it was to the edge of the national park I confess that I wondered whether it might not in all the circumstances make better sense to modify the boundary of the park.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness White: Ah, but wait, my Lords. The national park authority has already embarked on preliminary local consultations on possible revision of the park boundary in preparation for the formal 10-year review scheme initiated by the relevant authority for national parks; namely the Countryside Commission. In other words, park boundaries are sacred but not absolutely immutable for all time. But as soon as one went to Okehampton and saw the reality the idea of boundary modification became untenable. Not only is the quality of the land to be traversed by the proposed southern route indubitably of national park standard, as the recent Country side Commission statement so fully confirms, but this wooded escarpment is clearly part of the land mass of the park itself and provides a striking, in parts indeed a dramatic, introduction to the High Moor, even softening the shock of a sprawling army camp which one finds above it. This is true even if, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, the woodlands are not perhaps of the highest possible ecological quality As Mrs. Rumbold, the Junior Minister in another place, admitted, at the eastern end at Fatherford, where the new southern road would have to be carried on a high viaduct for a considerable distance, there would inevitably be the most serious visual intrusion. Whatever alleviating measures were adopted—I know that some have been considered—I am convinced that traffic noise would completely destroy the present tranquillity of the scene.
Not, I admit, that perfect peace reigns at present. The truckloads of ballast from the Meldon quarry travel by rail or further west by road several times a day. But this is not the intense and continuous noise of motor traffic on a major highway, which is the last thing one wants if one wishes to commune with nature. If one goes in person (I am speaking of those who, like myself, are not familiar with the area) the whole matter becomes very much more vivid.
I could continue with arguments for and against the northern and the southern routes, but I feel that perhaps it would be more helpful to leave that to others who have greater familiarity with the local scene and to turn to the second part of the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Underhill.
However, before I come to that there is one matter on which I feel obliged to comment. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a very lively defence of the special procedure adopted by the Government which has taken so much time, not only in absolute terms—nearly a year, because the orders were laid at the end of 1984—but has also led to the overturning of the opinion of the joint committee. That was triggered off by this matter of the compensatory land for open space. I find this extraordinarily puzzling. The major part of the required land now to be purchased by agreement already enjoys, as I understand it, de facto public access. I think I am also right in saying that the national park authority had already initiated negotiations for a long lease of that land. What I cannot understand is why, if the Country Landowners' Association has been so helpful now, it could not have been helpful long ago. Why was it impossible—had the

1447
Ministry of Transport put its heart, mind and effort into the matter—for it to have used its considerable power of persuasion with its landed friends to have obtained this land which, as recently as 23rd October, it informed us it could now obtain? Could it not have made that purchase possible and saved nearly a year of precious time and the efforts of the joint committee and the petitioners? This was not fully explained by the noble Earl and I find that extremely puzzling.
The Earl of Caithness: If I may quickly reply to that, as the noble Baroness has kindly mentioned me by name. We offered four acres which we were going to acquire compulsorily for the two acres of Meldon Woods. We did not know until the inspector reported that there was further de facto open space land which became de jure open space land when the inspector reported on East Hill. Therefore we could not offer any alternative land until the inspector has reported, and that was the problem.
Baroness Whites: My Lords, if that is the case, ought not something to be done to change the legislative position? It seems to me perfectly absurd, but no mention of that was made to the noble Earl.
As I said, one could go on arguing for the southern or northern route, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. Neither side will admit to disadvantages of their own and all will claim advantages which are not so obvious to other people. But against this background of continuing and quite passionate controversy, some of us have tried to distance ourselves and tried to consider in more general terms what might be done to help the Dartmoor national park if the Secretary of State for Transport gets his way for the southern route, whatever one may think of it. We have had assurances that the intrusion into the Dartmoor park is not be regarded as a precedent. We hope that this will prove true, but it could happen elsewhere. Such things are not unknown. Meanwhile in the Dartmoor national park the amenities and character of the park will be significantly affected in an area which is admittedly not large in relation to the totality of the park, but it is important as a northern entry point to many of those who wish to enjoy the amenities of the park, not least those who make Okehampton their base. A high rise major trunk route may be regarded by the Government as essential at this point, but surely they must agree that it is completely contrary to the concept of what a national park should be.
If a local planning authority gives a planning consent and then, for whatever good reason, reverses that decision, it is liable to pay a considerable sum in compensation. The formal designation of an area as a national park is surely to make a national planning decision on the nature and use of the area of land concerned. Circumstances may arise (as it could be argued that they have arisen at Okehampton) where subsequently it may be decided that action has to be taken which is indisputably contrary to the intentions of the designation. There is a procedure, as we have just mentioned, for compensation for the very small areas of designated open space, but there is no such procedure offered as restitution for a national park in circumstances in which its value indubitably will be
1448
diminished. My noble friend's amendment refers to land exchange as a possible way of compensating. However, in many circumstances land exchange on any scale which would have any kind of validity quite frankly is improbable. The right kind of land does not always appear at the spot at which one would like to find it.
There are other ways, however, of trying to make some kind of restitution, if one is defeated on the main objective of the complete protection of the national park. The Ministry of Transport has estimated that it would spend just on £22 million, at 1984 prices, on the southern route proposed through the park. I think one can safely say, that by the end of the construction period it will more likely be £25 million. In our view—and this is part of the thinking behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—there should be an obligation on the ministry to make some payment to the park authority for the significant loss of amenity. Obviously, at present, this would have to be ex gratia. But if this line of thought were to be considered to be desirable, then other means could, if necessary, be devised.
If local authorities have disincentives to reverse planning decisions, it seems only just that a Government department should make some recompense if it concludes that it must override what were, in effect, planning decisions on a national scale.
Suggestions have been made in another place that land to the east of the park and to the west of the now agreed first stage of the bypass might be included in the park. Some 1,400 acres was mentioned. This might be a sensible revision when the major boundary review is undertaken in a couple of years' time, but it does not seem to me at this stage to be a relevant substitution. In any case, it is not a matter for the Ministry of Transport to deal with, but for the Countryside Commission, which is the appropriate authority.
Reference has already been made to the suggestion that something should be done to meet the costs of the petitioners—members of voluntary organisations which are obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has suggested, better heeled than some of those who support voluntary organisations in the part of the country from which I come. It must be a very prosperous area. Nevertheless, they have spent some £50,000, on the abortive proceedings of the joint committee. Some have said they would refuse costs even if offered. Heaven forfend that any Government department should think it could buy its way into a national park. However, to offer some compensation as restitution for the significant disturbance seems to me to be quite another matter.
On an expenditure of £25 million, can one perhaps suggest that half a million by way of compensation might be about right? This is rather less than just a single year's Government grant for this particular park. The disturbance will not be for just a single year; it will be there for the foreseeable future.
If we are serious, we should keep out of national parks. If, nevertheless, in all the circumstances the decision is to be taken that other considerations override our concern for the environment, the procedure which I have suggested at least should be seriously considered. In the normal course of

1449
legislation this could be considered at a normal Committee stage. However, we are in an abnormal situation and therefore I must make this suggestion here, in support of my noble friend Lord Underhill, I hope very much that the Government and your Lordships' House will take it into account.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not accept either of these amendments. It reminds me of the time when one was in the courts of law: "If you have no defence on the merits, take a technical point, take a pleading point". That seems to me what is sought to be done by these amendments.
I should like to bring your Lordships back to the real matter before you. It is not what the route should be, north, south or the like. The only question is whether or not the Minister's order, under which he compulsorily acquired a few acres of land in Devon, should be approved and confirmed. Those are simply the closure orders.
This whole question of the route and so forth has been fully investigated in circumstances according to law, about which I shall tell your Lordships. In 1976, in pursuance of their statutory duty under the Highways Act, the Minister, the Secretary of State, had to set out the line of any proposed trunk road which was to serve the needs of the community. At that time, under the Labour Government in 1976, the proposed trunk road was proposed to take the strain off" Okehampton. The proposed road was one which would go through the so-called southern route, which would go through a little fringe edge of Dartmoor.
As the statute required, there had to be a public inquiry before that line of route was accepted and approved. There was a public inquiry chaired by Mr. Charles Fay. a member of the Bar. He heard every objection and everything in support. He took 93 days over it. This was in 1979–1981. Then, after another two years, he presented his report. Mark you, in the course of the case there were objections. We have had many of these cases, in which people have taken objections to the inspector doing this and hearing that, All those have gone overboard. Then, when his report has been made, people have sought to challenge the report in the courts, All those have gone by the board.
In this report the inspector went into this very point of the national park and considered it at length, with reasons. I shall not read the whole of his report because it would take me about three days to do so. However, I shall read the salient passages where he is dealing with this very question of the national park and this very question of the circular of 1976.
He said, in paragraph 2814 (your Lordships can see how many paragraphs he had; that is nearly 3,000):
"I now consider the policy relating to through routes and National Parks expressed in Circular 4/76, paragraph 58. Since I have concluded that there is 'a compelling need' for a bypass,"—
that is now accepted by everybody—
"the question to he answered is whether any northern alternative would consitute 'a reasonable alternative means'".
Thus he considers the very question there put. He goes into that very question in many paragraphs. He deals with the economic considerations, with the agricul-
1450
tural considerations. He deals with the question today and says, quite rightly, as all of us know, that this is not a matter for law, it is a matter of reasonableness which we always state to be a matter of fact.
After considering these matters in many paragraphs, he goes on to say in paragraph 2818:
"In all these circumstances, my view is that none of the northern routes that were considered at the inquiry is a reasonable alternative for the purposes of Circular 4/76".
Then he. considers the other matter. In his final conclusion in paragraph 2821, he says:
"Thus, having considered a large body of evidence and submissions, my conclusion is that a bypass for the A.30 at Okehampton should be built and that it should be built on the published route".
That is the route which goes through the edge of Dartmoor. That was his report. It was never challenged in the courts. Also—this is the important part—it was made the basis, by the Minister, of a statutory order under the Highways Act. Therefore, that is the order limiting the route, which has been decided in the face of all objections, in the face of the national park's objections, the environmental objections and all the others. That is the statutory order made under the Highways Act, after the full inquiry, which the statute provided.
So that route is decided. It will not create a precedent in regard to others because it is made only in regard to the exceptional case which has been mentioned. You can have the exceptional case even for a national park where there is a compelling need and no reasonable alternative. So it does not create a precedent in that way; nor can it in law create a precedent because all these questions of reasonableness are questions of fact and no decision on one set of facts ever binds another. So the question of precedence is out of the way.
Therefore, the line of the route having been decided authoritatively by a public inquiry and confirmed by the Minister under statute, it seems to me that that is not open to further investigation. But it was! When the question arose, it was simply this. When the Minister had to get the land for the route, he could get a lot of it by agreement. But there were a few acres—and there was all this question about open spaces; and I need not go into that—for which he had to get a compulsory purchase order. And he made that order. But, owing to the procedure which we have known and heard about, as there was a petition against this compulsory purchase order it was referred to a Joint Select Committee of your Lordships' House and of the Commons. The inquiry before that Joint Select Committee should have been simply about the validity or not of these closing orders. None of the people who owned the land objected at all. The people who came to object to the compulsory purchase order—could not object to the route any more—were the national parks and all these other bodies that we have heard of.
I am afraid that the joint committee was led up the garden path, if I may say so. It went again into all this matter of the route. I do not think that it ought to have done that, because once you have a decision as it was taken by the inspector, after all the evidence, you do not re-open it again. We have got a doctrine called res judicate. Once you have settled a thing after full

1451
inquiry you do not go canvassing it again, with all the expense involved. Anyway, the committee did so. But that committee did not have nearly so good a case as the inspector; it did not hear all these objectors and all the evidence and so forth. It was not in nearly so good a position to do that. It did not give a reasoned judgment, as did the inspector. Without any reason, it simply said it did not approve the compulsory purchase order. But it went into all the questions that I mentioned.
Its final decision—and it goes into what I think it ought not to have gone into—was:
"The Committee think that the northern route provides such a 'reasonable alternative means' and that the arguments in favour of the southern route do not justify the incursion into the National Park in this case".
I think that it really ought not to have gone into that. Then it says:
"This Committee are therefore of the opinion that the Orders be not approved".
It is for your Lordships to decide. This is a confirmation Bill. That is only a report by this joint committee for your Lordships' consideration and it is for your Lordships to decide on these compulsory purchase orders. That is the only thing. As I say, the route itself is already decided.
One comes to these amendments. My word! I will not go through them all, but it seems to me that a perfectly proper course was taken by the Government in saying, "Well, in the circumstances of such a debate and everything of this kind, this being a petition of general objection, let it be referred to a joint committee". It seems that that was quite right and the Government were quite right to receive the joint committee report and to consider it. But, having considered it, they could do as they have done in saying: "We think these compulsory purchase orders should be confirmed"; and they should be. It carries out the policy, the good policy, initiated by a Labour Government years ago, followed by this Government now, to have this bypass round Okehampton, even though it does go a little bit into the national park. That seems to be the policy, and it has been shown by my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh to be overwhelmingly supported by the county councils and the local authorities of Devon and Cornwall. In those circumstances surely your Lordships should affirm the Government and the Ministers and reject these amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I must say that I have listened to the last speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with increasing misunderstanding, if I may put it like that. That is because I had the pleasure—it was a pleasure—of going to the exhibition that was laid on.
Lord Denning: My Lords, so did I.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I found the noble and learned Lord there. He was there apparently picking up all the information he could garner. He told me that he did not know anything about it when he went there, but he appears to be entirely convinced by the exhibition. I will come back to that exhibition in a moment.
1452
I want immediately to try to deal with the argument which the noble and learned Lord is addressing to us, because it is an extraordinary argument coming from such an important and indeed, incomparable legal authority. The whole burden of his speech was that the inquiry before the inspector was a very reputable business, a very useful exercise; but then he proceeded to pour scorn upon the Act of Parliament which has been on the statute book ever since 1945, the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945. He said that the idea that these petitioners could get access to such a committee was really quite improper. He said that the committee went far beyond its rights in the matters which it discussed.
It is not often that I am able to correct the noble and learned Lord on a matter of pure fact; but the fact of the matter is that that is completely false. If the noble and learned Lord will refer to Section 5(1) of the 1945 Act, he will find that these are the words with which subsection begins:
"Where any petition against an order to which this Act applies is referred to a joint committee of both Houses…the order shall stand referred to that committee for the purpose of the consideration of the petition".
As soon as the petition is lodged, and once it is accepted by the two chairmen—the Lord Chairman of Committees in this House and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the other place; I will come back to that in a minute—the matter which is then referred to the joint committee is nothing whatever to do, in this case, with open space; it is what is contained in the petition. That is what the joint committee has got to consider.
The matter is made even clearer if one looks at the petition, because the petition made perfectly clear the issue on which we the petitioners petitioned. I use the word "we" because I happen to have the good fortune to be the president of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, which led the campaign, and also chief promoter of the petition. When the petition was drawn, what the petitioners said at paragraph 25 was this:
"At the heart of your Petitioners' objection is an issue of principle of the first magnitude for the whole future of national parks. As is stated in the letter dated 16th September 1983…announcing the decisions of the Secretaries of State, the crux of the matter is the statement of Government policy in Department of Environment Circular 4/76, particularly paragraph 58. which reads 'No new route for long distance traffic should be constructed through a national park, or an existing road upgraded, unless it has been demonstrated that there is a compelling need which would not be met by any reasonable alternative means'."
It was the simple business of that joint committee in its 15 days of hearing to consider whether that was made out; whether in fact when the Government put forward the southern route as their preferred route they were making a blunder, whether they had been wrong from the very beginning and whether the inspector also had been wrong in his interpretation of the circular.
I have heard it said on many occasions—it was said during the debate tonight, and it was said often enough in the other place the other day—that the inspector took an impartial view, as of course he did, and that he summed up the matter. What is not fully realised is that from the moment the department and the Secretary of State at the time decided to go through the national park, contrary to the policy laid down in the circular, all the resources of the Department of

1453
Transport and, shockingly enough, of the Department of the Environment were mobilised and deployed at the inquiry day after day, to disparage any route to the north and to promote the route advocated by the department. That is understandable, of course, but enormous pressure was brought to bear upon the inspector to accept the department's view.
Then we got before the joint committee. The joint committee looked at it again and came to the conclusion that the inspector had got it wrong because he had done a balancing act when what he was supposed to do was to consider whether any northern route presented a reasonable alternative means. And so the inquiry before the joint committee took place. At the end of the day they decided, having spent all the time that anybody wanted to spend on it, having listened to the department's witnesses, and to learned counsel, senior and junior, instructed by the department, that a great mistake had been made from the beginning.
It is all very well for the supporters of this Bill to say, "We cannot tolerate any further delay", as the Secretary of State for Transport said in the other place when giving the reasons why this Bill is being introduced. He says that we have got to settle this once and for all. It is all very well for that to be said, when the people who are responsible for the fact that Okehampton has not got a bypass today are the people who are supporting and proposing this Bill—because had the Government never departed from their own declared policy the bypass would have been constructed at this time. Now when we talk about delay every argument is advanced to try to suggest that going to the north instead of to the south would involve nine, 10, 11 or 12 years' delay. They build it up. It is of course in their great interest to argue that it is going to involve delay, but they are the people who are entirely responsible for that. The poor people of Okehampton have suffered under this because of the mismanagement of the Government.
I had not intended to be diverted into that small discussion and I think the best thing I can do in the remainder of my remarks is to concentrate on one matter only. It is my contention, which I shall hope to persuade your Lordships is right, that while the Government are of course entitled to do it and while it is provided in certain circumstances that a government can introduce a Bill to overturn a report of a Select Committee, the way in which they have done it on this occasion has been a gross misuse of power.
I want to tell your Lordships why I take that view, but before I do so I should like just to refer back again to the exhibition. It was the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who at the moment is not in his place, who made the passing comment about our advertisement in The Times today that the people who had paid for the advertisement evidently were not on the breadline. Very well, but how has the propaganda of the Government been paid for? I hope some of your Lordships went over to see the exhibition and I hope that you will have taken notice of the fact that Mr. Ridley is going to use public money to buy no less than 70,000 trees to be planted there. Those 70,000 trees will be planted there along that four-mile stretch. The number of trees he is going to give us out of his
1454
munificence may give your Lordships some idea of the enormous injury that has to be covered up. The exhibition in Marsham Street was paid for by the taxpayer. The one at another venue was paid for by the poor ratepayers of West Devon, who had their money used without ever having been asked whether the council could do it.
At these two exhibitions the main exhibits were what I think are called montages. The first was a photograph of the southern route, looked at from the north, from the direction of Okehampton. There was the photograph of the existing countryside and superimposed upon it, so we were told, was a drawing of the great dual carriageway, as it will be when it is completed. But there was no sign of the dual carriageway; there was no sign of the great bridge which is going to cross the railway there and no sign of both great concrete viaducts—the one that goes over the East Okement River and the one that goes over the West. Why?—because it had all been greened out. they had put a lot of green paint there and painted them all out. That is what was done with 70,000 trees. We were presented with a picture not of a few early saplings, but of a forest in full maturity, all done by the Secretary of State for Transport.
Looking to the other side, there was another montage. This time it showed a picture of the northern route. We have been told in another context that nobody knows where the northern route is going to go. We have been told there are 13 or 14 different options; but the man who made this drawing, this montage, knew exactly where it was going. He must have been told by the Secretary of State.
So what have they done there? You saw there something quite different. You saw a long stretch of bare, bleak embankment, with a big truck running along the top, just to make sure that you knew what it was all about, and not a tree, not a bush, in sight. It would appear that the Secretary of State, when he came to commission that exhibit, had not only run out of trees but had run out of paint, too. I say that because it is the sort of exercise that you might expect from an over-eager advertising agency, but it is not the sort of thing that should be foisted off on the Members of the House of Commons and the Members of your Lordships' House.
I wonder why those two exhibits were not presented to the Select Committee. I know the answer to it. too. In the Select Committee, it would have been subject to scrutiny, it would have been subject to cross-examination and the imposture would have been exposed. That is why it was never shown. The noble Lord is laughing, but that is in keeping with another map which they had on display. That was a map which was supposed to demonstrate what a small incursion a new route would make.
You had a map of the Dartmoor national park which was a complete blank, except for the little roadway running across to the north. It disguised the fact, of which even people such as the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, must be aware, that the greater part of the national park is not open country at all; it is privately owned farmland and the rest. There was no sign of that on the map. The suggestion was that the whole of the rest of this vast national park would be left available.

1455
It gave no sign of the fact that there is the hideous Meldon dam, which was built only some 10 years ago in the face of every kind of protest and which is one of the disasters of the area. It gave no sign of the fact that up on the northern moor, just south of Okehampton, you have the awful hutted camp of the military. It gave no sign of the fact that over large stretches of the northern moor the public are not allowed to go at all because it is being used, if you please, as a firing range by the military.
All these things we have tried to fight in the past, and every time we have had somebody coming forward with a proposal to exploit the moor we have always been met with the same sort of arguments as we have heard here tonight: "Look, this is only a small incursion. It does not matter. Compare it with the size of the rest of the park. It does not really matter." That is the argument used every time.
It is the argument used by the chief protagonist of this route, Sir Peter Mills. I cannot remember a single occasion in the last 25 years, when anybody has made a proposal to exploit the moor in one way or another, when it has not been supported by Sir Peter Mills. He regards the national park as a dustbin.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, is it in order for the noble Lord to attack a Member of another place who is seriously ill at the moment and not able to answer?
Lord Foot: My Lords, Sir Peter Mills is perfectly capable of looking after himself. It would be ridiculous if we could not discuss this matter without any reference to what was said in the House of Commons a week or two ago by any of the Members there. How can we have a satisfactory discussion?
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, the honourable Member was not present in that debate, because he was then seriously ill, as he is now.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I leave that matter there.
I want now to come to the other issue and it is what I might call the legitimacy of this Bill. As I said earlier, it is perfectly true that the Government are entitled to do it according to the strict reading of the Act. But what is at issue here is not whether it is right, but whether it is in any way proper for them to carry this Bill through. A question which arises right at the outset—and it is a question of the utmost importance, because it goes to the good faith of the Government—is: when did the Secretary of State for Transport decide that he was going to strike down the decision of the Select Committee if it went against him? When did he make that decision?
The sequence of events was this. First, the two compulsory purchase orders were laid, as they must be under the Act, before the two Houses. The next step was that the petition was presented. The following step was that it was scrutinised by the two chairmen, as I have described. The next step was that the Government's agents appeared before the two chairmen to urge that we should not be allowed to refer to the national park issue in our petition or in the hearing before the joint committee. As I said, the two chairmen turned that down, without asking our representative to make any answer.
1456
Then the joint committee was set up and all the preparations were made for the matter to be heard.
At some stage in that process the Secretary of State must have asked himself: what am I going to do if the joint committee should find against me? He must have asked that question for the very good reason that there are important precedents and his advisers would certainly have drawn to his attention what those precedents are.
The first quotation in the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, wrote to The Times the other day was this. He quoted what had been said by Mr. Rippon, who was then the responsible Minister, replying to a debate in the other place on 13th March 1962, when he said this
"If the Minister regards an Order as being so fundamental to his policy that even if it went to a Joint Committee, and even if the Joint Committee took a certain view, he would, nevertheless, do as he is entitled to do, which is to introduce a Bill under Section 6 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, it would be quite unfair to the petitioners, or anyone else to allow the matter to go to the Joint Committee".
[Official Report, Commons; cols. 1274–5.]
That was borne out by another statement by Mr. Rippon, in which he said:
"Where a Minister regards an order as being so fundamental to his policy that, supposing it was rejected by a joint committee he would insist on making it, even though this entailed introducing a confirming Bill, in such a case it would be only fair to the petitioner to save him pointless expense".
The pertinence of my question, as to when the Secretary of State decided that he was going to kill the joint committee's decision if it was against him, is this. If he came to the decision and did not comply with what Mr. Rippon had said, and indeed later with what the Brooke Committee which reviewed this matter said, if he came to that conclusion and kept it to himself, he was guilty—was he not?—of gross misrepresentation.
When we-the petitioners raised the funds—and it took a lot of money—and went to all the trouble to prepare a petition and present it to both Houses, we were under the innocent belief that if we succeeded before the committee then our view of the matter would prevail. But if the decision had already been made that if the proceedings of the joint committee went against the Secretary of State he was going to obliterate them, not only were the petitioners deceived, but the three Members of your Lordships' House who sat for 15 days were completely deceived. All the witnesses who were called by the department assumed that they were taking part in some useful exercise. Not only were they deceived but the general public were deceived.
I wonder whether we can be told this by the Lord President of the Council. Did he know whether the Minister had made a decision or not? It does not make very much difference whether the Secretary of State just failed to make up his mind on the matter before the committee sat, because now he is trying to annul all the proceedings before the committee, and as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said, render them nothing but a mere charade. The Government say, "Don't worry. You need not worry, this is not a precedent". I do not know what they mean by that. Do they mean that the Secretary of State for Transport is saying, "Look here, you do not have to worry about this

1457
decision because you are never going to get another Secretary of State to act as badly as I am acting now. There will never be another one like me"? That is something devoutly to be hoped for, but they cannot escape from the difficulty by saying whether the Secretary of State made up his mind before the hearing or afterwards. Certainly we ought to have been warned—everybody ought to have been warned—that if needs be and if the committee came to a conclusion that the Secretary of State did not like, he would strike it down.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a question about me. I think it is perfectly clear from the account that my noble friend Lord Molson gave of my correspondence with him that I acted in totally good faith to this House and indeed to everyone else throughout. When the noble Lord, Lord Molson, approached me in the first instance, I went to my colleagues and, as he rightly said, the Motion was taken off the Order Paper. Shortly afterwards the Joint Select Committee was set up. I do not think anybody would accuse me of taking all the trouble to get noble Lords of this House to set on a joint committee if I thought it was going to be overruled if it came to a particular decision, one way or the other. Of course not. At the end of the time I think I am right in saying that the Joint Select Committee reported on 3rd April. The first time I knew there was any question of a Bill of this kind being produced was at the beginning of June. I knew it then but I should point out that that was two months after the Select Committee had reported.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I accept every word of that. Indeed I hope that I said nothing to disagree with it. I am absolutely certain that the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council has acted in good faith throughout. I am sure of that. But if of course the Secretary of State had decided before 3rd April that he was going to strike down the committee's ruling, ought he not to have told the noble Viscount?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I have to say that if my right honourable friend in another place had made that decision, and if he had not told me and I had subsequently discovered, I should have been extremely angry. I have not subsequently so discovered.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I shall not detain the House any longer. I have gone on longer than I should have done.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Foot: My Lords, that is the first popular applause I have had from the other side of the House.
In conclusion, I wish to say a few words about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I understand that the noble Lord feels about the matter very much as I do. He feels very strongly about it. But I have to say to the House that if noble Lords choose to vote for his amendment, which will not strike down the Bill but will merely express regret at what the Government are doing, that will not hinder the
1458
passage of the Bill. Indeed I am afraid that anybody who votes for his amendment in preference to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, will be making the building of the southern bypass more certain. That is our dilemma. There is no way in which we can be compensated. The Dartmoor National Park Committee would not dream of taking a financial consideration in return for the desecration of the national park. I hope that, when we do come to a Division, Members of your Lordships' House who are of the same opinion as the joint committee will all go into the Lobby in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson.
6.48 p.m.
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, when I arrived in the House this afternoon rather late (because taxis can never be found in wet weather) and found that I was listed to speak after the noble Lord who has just sat down I was a little nervous because I felt I should perhaps have to follow him in more senses than one. But I feel now that, the big guns having fired the heavy salvoes, I have no obligation to do that, and your Lordships would not want me to try.
I have known and frequently visited Dartmoor for the past 75 years to my certain knowledge, but it may be for even longer because I cannot remember whether I went there in my pram when I was two, three and four years old. My grandparents lived at Buckland-in-the-Moor. I have always had a passionate love of Dartmoor. When I say that I support the southern route, I should not like noble Lords to think that I am doing it as a Philistine who thinks it is a cheap route and that national parks do not matter. I do think national parks matter. I am a dedicated conservationist and I helped to start the Somerset Trust for Nature Conservation some 21 years ago when conservation was not such a popular subject as it is today. The presidency was taken over by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who is sitting on the Front Bench now. National parks must be protected, and especially this huge national park of Dartmoor must be protected.
I should like to make another comment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is not in his place, said that the national parks were too small. I thought I would look that up and I found that the national park of Dartmoor is 365 square miles in area, which, translated into acres, is 233,600 acres. We propose to desecrate about 140 acres, and they will mostly be shielded by trees and from sight. The only other time I have dealt with Dartmoor was in another sphere when I was passionately opposed to the Swincombe reservoir. It never took place.
I am very familiar with the A.30 throughout its whole length. I imagine that everyone who has travelled the route through Okehampton knows that there must be a bypass. The only question is whether it should be north or south of the town. I say "everybody", but I was somewhat surprised by one of the duplicated and, I believe, manufactured letters included in the huge mail which we have all received on this subject. One gentleman wrote that he thought all the traffic should be diverted to the A.38 from Exeter and go around by Plymouth. He did not think that the traffic should go through the north of

1459
Dartmoor at all. I do not know what my noble friend Lady Vickers thinks of that suggestion, but that is what he proposed.
I am not sure that the brilliant and redoubtable Lady Sayer, in her well-timed letter in today's issue of The Times—and she is a very formidable and indefatigable organiser—does not almost imply that she would support that solution too and get the traffic well away from Dartmoor. However, I am not sure about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had a terrible fear of precedent. However, my noble friend Lord Caithness, in a brilliant opening speech in which he covered nearly all the points which there are to be covered, gave a categorical assurance on behalf of the Secretary of State that this matter would not be treated as a precedent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, later informed us non-lawyers that we cannot establish a precedent in that way; that it must be a matter of fact and of judgment.
I support the southern route because I believe that it would do less damage to the environment. We have not heard very much about the detail of the southern route. I have some details, but as it is so late I must cut most of them out. Nevertheless, all that I have heard in this debate so far, all that was said in. another place on 19th November (and I commend any of your Lordships who have not already done so to read the Secretary of State's speech in that debate) all that I have been able to digest from the mass lobby of papers, and from all the maps, plans, demonstrations and exhibitions we have seen—and today, as in a modern takeover bid, the subject has even overflowed into the advertisement columns, with the lobby buying space in The Times—has convinced me that the arguments for the southern route overwhelmingly prevail over the arguments against it.
Quite apart from the arguments about the southern route—and it is not really necessary for me to say this because it has already been said by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and by the other heavy guns—the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, wrote to The Times the other day is very right. It would be the most appalling blunder—to use no other word—if we in this House allowed ourselves to throw out a Bill for the first time since, I imagine, the Parliament Act. My uncle was a whip then, so I do not personally remember that occasion. However, for us to throw out for the first time in recent history a Bill that has come from the Commons—and on such a subject as this, as to where a road in Devonshire should go—is really something that we must not do. I cannot see how anybody could support the main amendment, which would wreck the Bill.
I should like to say a little more about a matter that was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and by others. It concerns the quality of the land. The quality of land down there, at the bottom of the escarpment on the south side of Okehampton, is very delightful, with some woods grown up. However, I wonder whether one normally expects to find in a national park a very big working quarry, a golf course, a railway line, and various other developments of that kind. There is now
1460
quite a lot of housing development down there. I wonder whether, if the boundary was being decided for the first time today, one would have included that little piece of land in the national park.
Another point that has not been mentioned is that if the southern route goes forward as planned—and it is all ready to go—it will be in that low ground and will be shielded ultimately by trees. It will hardly be seen from Okehampton town itself. It certainly will not be seen if one looks from the escarpment. That area of Dartmoor has been most terribly and distressfully spoilt already by military camps and access roads into it. I am bound to say that that little piece of Dartmoor in the national park running up from Okehampton to a point beyond the camps is by far the most unattractive part of the whole of Dartmoor.
There is some woodland at Meldon Quarry which shields the quarry to some extent. It has now been rechristened Bluebell Wood. For those of your Lordships who did not see the fascinating letter written by Lord Courtenay to the Daily Telegraph on 13th August, I must quote a part of it. He wrote that the phrase,
" 'Save a small comer of Meldon Tip' has not quite the same ring about it as 'Save Bluebell Wood', but it would be a lot more accurate".
That is exactly what that corner of the wood is; it is mostly hiding a tip.
The opposition to the southern route has been quite out of scale. It has occasioned already a delay of nearly 20 years, at huge expense. That delay has been a grave disservice to all concerned, both nationally and locally. There is no northern route mapped out, designed and agreed. The question before us tonight is not of choosing the north route or the south route, both of them being prepared and ready to go. Any northern route would be fiercely opposed, and it is inconceivable that the opposers would not be able to cause long delays, perhaps for another 10 or 20 years. We cannot be a party to encouraging such delay.
The southern route was the route preferred by the original public inquiry which, if I may be allowed to correct the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, sat for 96 days and not for 93, as I think he said. It is also the route preferred by the local majority, by the Cornwall and Devon County Councils, and by practically all the parish and district councils. It will not seriously damage the environment, as it runs in cuttings for such a lot of the way, and it will not desecrate the national park. It is the commonsense route, the shortest route, the cheapest route, and the best engineering-wise technical route. This is the main point: it is ready to start. It only awaits your Lordships' vote in favour of this Bill tonight. The starting pistol is already cocked. Let us pull the trigger and start the race to complete this in less than three years.
7 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in the normal course of events I would not dare to intervene in a debate of this kind. Certainly I would not dare to follow the noble Earl who has just spoken, particularly his last sentiments: more particularly, after listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who always appears to me to be right and authoritative even when I think he is perhaps wrong.

1461
So, just as I was wondering what words I might be able to use, with all due deference, to try to correct the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, along came the noble Lord, Lord Foot—thank God!—and did the job far better than I could probably have done. When 1 say he did the job, I mean that he corrected the impressions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, about the scope and terms of reference of the joint committee. That is the only reason that I intervene. For my sins, and for whatever reason, I was a member of the Joint Committee of your Lordships' House. I am grateful for the opportunity given to me by your Lordships to have that experience.
I can vouch for the facts outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I will not repeat them all. The joint committee did take very seriously the terms of reference. It went into them quite deeply. We ascertained exactly what had happened at the meeting where the promoters memorialized before the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Committees of this House. We knew exactly what had happened and the minutes are available if any noble Lord wishes to familiarise himself with them. Therefore, we knew that our terms of reference applied to the whole order and not just a specific part.
I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who opened the debate. He was very fair on this point; that they did memorialize against it, that the chairmen did find against him and said that the petition was in order to go forward, as a general objection, to the joint committee. That means, and I think everyone will accept, that we cannot just discuss a part of the order in isolation when the whole order, plus the petition and the petitioners' case, had been presented to the joint committee.
Before we started we were advised and took advice from whatever learned experience was available to the committee. Certainly I was assured that any assertion that the joint committee had misdirected itself could be firmly rejected. That has to be said and cannot be said often enough. It seems that the case being put forward by many spokesmen from the Government Benches rests on how much they can denigrate that joint committee and the procedures of the House; how much mud they can throw at the recommendations or deliberations of that committee, to the extent of saying that it did not hear the case against and did not listen to witnesses.
Forgive me, my Lords, but I was there. I did not see many noble Lords in the public gallery. I certainly saw one or two, but not many, and not many of those who have spoken tonight. Yet they say with all authority that the committee did not listen to witnesses. I am bound to say that it did. We on the committee heard counsel and his assistant, and his advisers from the Department of Transport. We also heard the leader of the local council and other landscape experts, and people who were against the northern route and speaking in favour of the preferred route. We heard all those witnesses as well as witnesses from the other side. It is therefore a travesty of the facts and to be deplored that a committee set up by both Houses can be denigrated in the fashion that has been done so far.
I hope I have said enough to convince noble Lords who do not accept it yet that the joint committee was within its rights and its terms of reference, and
1462
certainly within the confidence placed in it by both Houses, to go into the matters with which it dealt The matters that were dealt with have been covered by other noble Lords and I shall spend a wee bit of time on some other aspects.
Like other noble Lords, I received many letters about the Okehampton bypass. The noble Earl who spoke before me mentioned his bundle of mail. He can imagine that I had just as much, if not more, because people knew that I was a member of the joint committee. Other committee members will endorse that. I am also aware of the press cuttings and letters that poured in, for whatever reason, from either side. I know too of the expensive exercise mounted by the department and so graphically illustrated and demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I know of all those things, but in spite of that and in spite of the threat of even more and inordinate delays if the Bill is not passed tonight, there have been only slender majorities produced by the local authorities. Even after all that, the majorities have been slender—I think it was 38–34 on the main local authority.
I suggest, from reading all these letters from outside, that what many people are supporting now—and I wholeheartedly agree with them—is the compelling need for a bypass; the need for a road. Whether it goes south, north, east, west, through the middle, the back or the front, I do not think bothers many people. They want a road, and I agree with that. I would agree far more if they were honest enough to say that is the case rather than go through all the devious methods which are being used to try to justify the southern route. I can sympathise with them in the difficulties that have been experienced over all these years, and the possibility of further difficulties if there is to be more delay.
Another attempt to denigrate the joint committee has been to almost blame it for the delay, or the delay that might ensue. That is to ignore the fact, as has already been pointed out by some noble Lords, that there was a northern route, or a line on the development map in the county development plan, in 1963. My noble friend Lord Underhill mentioned it. People may say that that was only a line on the map put on with a pencil. That was said at a public meeting I attended recently. Again, that is to denigrate the whole serious procedure that took place. I was present at some of the development planning meetings—not at Okehampton, but in other parts of the country. They, too, were very serious meetings. People did not just draw lines on maps. A great deal of serious consideration was given to where those lines were drawn and why they were drawn. It was known that land and property would have to acquired, or whatever, in advance of development because of the line that was drawn on the development plan. It was not a wasted exercise, as some Government supporters have tried to propose.
That line was on the map with no objections and no protests from anyone. It was there for about 10 years. It was only then, after some time, that it was discovered that the railway line that runs through the park might be closed and someone suggested to the department that there was an ideal solution—it was to use the railway line. That was perfectly reasonable and was something to consider. They could have asked: why not develop that as part of the route? So the Land

1463
Commission, and others, started working on that route. They accepted that as the southern route, provided—and your Lordships can check this in the Landscape Commission's reports—that proposals were based on the possible closure of the railway.
Some years elapsed and the railway was not closed; but they had gone so far down the line, as it were, in developing the southern route and arguing for the southern route and arguing against the development of the planned route, and so on, that they could not go back and have been stuck with it ever since. That is the situation. Therefore, we are in this position because the route was moved from the north. The real people who are therefore guilty of causing the delay are those who have been advocating the southern route in spite of all the changes and changed circumstances which have taken place since. I shall mention a few in a moment. The people who have been advocating the southern route in spite of the changes and in spite of everything else are more guilty of causing the delay than anyone who has come after.
The inquiry inspector has been quoted at length in support of the Government's chosen route. If we look at page 530, paragraph 2778, we find that he said that the inquiry revealed "a substantial body of opinon" in favour of the published route and "a substantial body of opinion"—the same words—opposed to the published route. There was not an overwhelming public demand for the southern route.
I come to the confirming Bill that is before us tonight. If we pass it that will have the effect of restoring the Secretary of State's wish and desire for the southern route. As has been pointed out, that would wipe out the decision of the joint committee, which sat for all those days, studied the maps and photographs, listened to counsel and witnesses for the promoters and for the petitioners, visited the site and tramped the route. I do not know how many noble Lords have done that, but the committee members did. The procedure must have cost thousands and thousands of pounds. Now that the matter has developed in this way, I ask myself, as indeed many other people must be asking themselves: if the Secretary of State was so determined to get his way, even to the extent of rejecting the results of the joint committee's detailed deliberations, why bother to go to the trouble of setting it up?
There are ample procedural grounds for not having done so. He could have used the 1945 Act. He could have put it to the House at that stage that the matter should not be sent to the joint committee. But he did not. When did he say—as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was at pains to findout—"Whatever happens on that joint committee, I shall get my way. I and my department are determined on the southern route. We have been geared for it, and all the work has been done for it. Whatever the committee says, I shall go for the southern route"? When did that decision take place? There is no means of finding out, and it is nearly 12 months since the joint committee made the recommendation. There has been another 12 months' delay, which is certainly not the fault of the joint committee. It is, again, the fault of the department. It has taken all that time since the joint committee reported even to start to have the matter discussed here. Who is causing delays unnecessarily? I suspect
1464
that the Secretary of State's decision was made long ago.
Like most noble Lords I have done my research. I am grateful to noble Lords, learned advisers and clerks for their assistance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I merely ask the noble Lord to look in Hansard at what my noble friend the Leader of the House clearly said about the time of the decision earlier this evening, so that he does not put himself in an awkward position.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I was there and I listened to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, but I did not think that he replied to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I certainly did not get the reply that I was seeking about when the decision was taken. It was a simple question, but there was no answer. It was certainly not an attack on the noble Viscount. On the contrary, I feel sorry for him if, like me, he is wondering whether he has been conned, led up the garden path, and did not know all that much.
As I said, I have done a little research. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who is an accredited and recognised expert, because he went back at least 100 years further than I did. I did not go beyond 1945, but the noble Lord was able to take us to 1845 to strengthen his case.
But I found out that there had been 43 joint committees set up to consider a total of 46 orders since 1945: 20 orders were approved, 21 were amended and five, including these two, were not approved. On the three previous occasions when the orders were not approved no confirming Bill was introduced. The only precedent for overturning a joint committee's findings on an order by way of a confirming Bill is the one which has been mentioned already—the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board Order Bill in 1949.
In that case a joint committee considered the order and amended it in a number of respects. Most of the amendments were accepted by the Minister but two were thought to be unacceptable, and so two amendments were overturned by that confirming Bill and not the whole order, as is the case here. It is not accurate to say that that is an exact precedent. There is no precedent for a confirming Bill to reverse a decision of a joint committee and not to approve an order. I could find no precedent since 1945. The only one that I found was the one which I mentioned and which tried to reverse two amendments, which is a different thing; and so we are not comparing like with like.
I think that the House should ponder on the possible procedural consequences before we go down the road of throwing out the joint committee report. There are advantages in the joint committee procedure. It expedites proceedings on orders in both Houses; and the committee can consider in detail complicated arguments involving large amounts of evidence, maps and models. It would be impossible to conduct that process in the House normally. That is the benefit of the joint committee. To override that process—in this case after 15 days (96 hours) and all the other matters that I have mentioned—goes against the whole spirit of the joint committee procedure. Are we now to expect any Government to override the findings of a joint

1465
committee wherever its views about the application of public policy to particular circumstances are inconvenient for that Government? If so, to say the least it will prove difficult to find anyone willing to serve on a joint committee. I can assure your Lordships that it will be no easy task. People will rightly consider that it is a pointless exercise if, after so much deliberation, decisions can be overturned as simply as that.
I turn again to the alleged precedent of the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board Order Bill. Similar views were expressed in 1949. I shall not weary your Lordships with too many quotations, but some are relevant. On 19th May 1949 (at col. 837) the then Lord Belstead said:
"It seems very unfortunate that the Minister has acted in this way. All your Lordships will be aware, or at any rate will be easily reminded, that the Committees which sit upstairs are not easy to man. The Clerks and the Party Whips of both Parties are well aware of this. It is rather difficult to obtain the continuous attendance which is necessary. The Committee on this Bill took six days of very careful consideration".
The noble Lord outlined how many questions, and so on. He continued:
"It seems rather a pity, and not very encouraging to those who serve on these Committees, that, at the will of the Minister, however honestly applied and intended, it should be possible to reverse the decision of a Committee who have had every conceivable detail laid before them, cross-examined, re-examined and dealt with almost, I was going to say. ad nauseam".
The noble Lord was followed by the Marquess of Reading (at col. 838) who said:
"Of course, the House itself is always in the position of the overriding authority. When a Committee of the House report to the House they willingly accept the House's decision as to whether what they have decided is right or wrong. That is a very different situation, however, from having to accept an arbitrary decision of the Minister after a Committee of your Lordships' House have given close and detailed attention to an intricate matter. It is very much to be hoped that, if it is in accordance with the new procedure, it will not be a course frequently adopted by any Government Department".
I could go on. The then Lord Gifford followed and he said that to overturn such decisions was a grave issue. He said:
"They feel that if. after hearing fully the Petitions and evidence put forward, an arbitrary reversal is to take place on the instructions of the Minister, the considerable expense which they incur in putting forward their cases before these Committees is wasted".
And so on. Lord De La Warr made similar points. This appears in the Lords Hansard of 19th May 1949 for any noble Lord who would like to check. They are saying (are they not?) similar things to what we are saying now. It was because of what they said that the other place and this House arrived at the situation quoted by the noble Lords, Lord Molson and Lord Foot, when Mr. Geoffrey Rippon in the other place articulated what he considered should be the procedure. Later on, we had the 1965 review which virtually underwrote the opinion of Mr. Geoffrey Rippon when he was Minister. It was finally underwritten by the Brooke Committee in 1972, not all that long ago. After discussion, they said that:
"where a Minister regards an order as being so fundamental to his policy that, supposing it were rejected by a joint committee, he would insist on making it, even though this entailed introducing a confirming Bill under section 6 of the Act. In such a case it would be only fair to the petitioner to save him pointless expense".
1466
Everyone who has studied the matter comes to the same conclusion. If this is what the Minister intended in the first place, why bother with the joint committee procedure? If, having bothered with the joint committee procedure, he goes ahead with it and does what the Bill seems to intend to do, there are many grave repercussions for this House, certainly in the view of us who value the institution and the procedures laid down from time to time. I have spent rather long on this aspect. I thought it was necessary for me, as a member of the joint committee, to set out matters as I see them.
I should like now to mention one or two detailed points that have not previously been mentioned. I may be on my own in saying that there is one matter that disturbs me. I wish to mention the deed of gift of a Mrs. Ryan in connection with Bluebell Wood. I am sorry that the noble Lord the Minister lays his hands down in despair. A deed of gift has always been a serious matter to me. I was brought up to believe that such deeds were sacred documents that should not be pushed to one side by anyone. In that deed of gift and dedication—I have a copy—Mrs. Ryan, to commemorate the death of her daughter in 1954, gave in 1965 some 50 acres of land to the Okehampton Hamlets Parish Council as trustees for the benefit of the public at large. The words of the deed are that
"the property is to be preserved in its existing state; that no timber or timber-like trees standing upon the property in 1965 shall be felled (except if they are dangerous) and the present character of the woods is to be maintained as far as possible; and that no part of the property (other than the road) shall be used otherwise than as an open space preserved for the recreation and enjoyment at all times by the public and for the benefit of the public without charge for entry thereon".
I would have thought that this House would regard that as a fairly sacred document, not to be lightly tinkered with. I agree with the sentiments of one correspondent who said to me:
"If this violation of trust is permitted through the passage of the Government's confirming Bill, it would be as offensive as it is morally indefensible".
I would hope that there might be some noble Lords who accept that view. I have mentioned the Land Commission. Anyone who has studied the Land Commission's reports will see that I have reported them accurately. They dealt with the route of the railway up to 1974–75 when it was found to be too late to make changes. When on the joint committee I asked about six visits which were made between 1969 and 1975. At no time and certainly on none of those visits or in the reports was there mention of the Sandford report or Circular 4/76. Nor were they in any position to discuss the updated route, Route M. I asked whether it would not have been advisable for the Secretary of State to request them to make a seventh visit to discuss the whole matter again in line with new developments—the new route, the new policy on parks, Sandford and Circular 4/76. I still believe that their views would have been more relevant had they been able to make the seventh visit.
I have already dealt with the question of delay. I do not wish to go further except to say that we do not accept any responsibility for the delay so far as the joint committee is concerned. On the contrary, we went out of our way to say that any further delay could be avoided given goodwill, commitment and co-

1467
operation. I still believe that this is true and that this could happen. I wish to refer finally to the question of balance. This has been mentioned by noble Lords, Members of another place and by the Secretary of State and Ministers who say that they took balance into account. However, it depends where you start. I became convinced, after listening to all the witnesses and the evidence, that the only place to start was with the national parks policy and Circular 4/76. If there was to be balance, it had to be a balance set against the deliberate policy outlined by the Government and underwritten by Secretaries of State for many years. That was the place to start—not at the other end with the southern route and then to try to justify everything that had gone before.
So the balance did not get off to the correct start. It might be difficult for some noble Lords to understand this. It is not difficult for others who understand policy on the national parks. It must always be to the advantage of the route through the park that it is the shortest, and perhaps cheaper and quicker. So we have an imbalance. But that was not the object of the exercise. We were concerned to see whether the order was justified and to consider whether there was a compelling need for a bypass that could not be met by another reasonable route. The joint committee came to the conclusion that the northern route as discussed in the committee was an alternative reasonable route. I shall be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in the Lobby tonight. If he needs a Teller, I shall be only too happy to volunteer.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, in declaring my interest, I have to say that I am a "has been". In other words, I have not been in Devon for the last two years. So that has to be borne in mind. However, like the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, although not for as long. I have to say that since the age of 11 in 1927 I have walked over Dartmoor, I have shot over Dartmoor, I have fished over Dartmoor and I have exercised over Dartmoor, Inter alia my daughter and her husband live slap in the outback, so to speak,
"on a track never crossed 'cept by those that be lost, one Michael Magee, had a shanty".
For several years before I left I was president of the Devonshire Association of Parish Councils. I am, of course, a member of the NFU. I am a past president of the Devon County Agricultural Association. I was a national vice-president of the Rural District Councils Association before it was abolished. All those were nothing compared with the years I spent as vice-chairman, chairman and president of the Devon branch of the Country Landowners' Association. There are two of my successors here tonight—the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, who spoke earlier, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who will follow me now.
In those days we had a continual battle to try to protect the countryside. I quote from a speech I made in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in, he tells me, 1967 when I said:
"Devon has been plagued by an organisation which opposes even the planting of a tree on what my old maps called a forest".
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, will know to which organisation I am referring.
1468
But the point I am trying to make is this. We had our big troubles then about reservoirs and where they were to go. Whenever it was suggested that it would be anywhere near the Moor this organisation chose 20 other nice places which were not on the Moor. As the then chairman of the sub-committee which was looking into all these things I had to go around—I am sure that they did not look at them all—and we saw that they were doing what they could to hold things up. They were stopping anything going on the Moor. But the lesson here is that if we had not been held up on, for example, those reservoirs, there would not have been the drought the year before last and the other one three years before. We are of course by now due for another one. If one applies that kind of situation to what they are doing now the unfortunate inhabitants of Okehampton and the people whose business depends on it to the west, south and north will have to go on suffering.
I am for the southern route. It is quicker to complete. It upsets nobody's livelihood, such as the farms on the northern side. It is unobtrusive to the view, whereas, no matter where one puts the northern route, unless one goes miles to the north, it will stand out like the wart on Cromwell's nose. The southern route is the obvious one. It is not on Dartmoor itself. When they made the national park they followed the parish boundaries; but the parish boundaries are not the Moor proper. Just north is the southernmost sign which says that one is in the national park. That is not on Dartmoor, as we understand it. The same thing applies to the southern route there. There is just a little bit at the south which is within the parish boundaries I presume.
I should like to be able to give one word of encouragement to the unfortunate people in Okehampton. Chudleigh, where I came from, was on the main Plymouth-Exeter road. After the development of containers and what-have-you at Plymouth, the traffic was very bad. The area was being built up, the dormer windows in the narrow main street were being knocked out. One could not go shopping there, one could not take one's children to school, We eventually got the bypass and now Chudleigh is again a little country village. People can meet together. One can cross the road without being knocked down. One does not have to take one's child to school every day. Instead of going off elsewhere to shop—because it was so impossible in Chudleigh—people from outside the village are now going back there.
I hope therefore that your Lordships will follow the advice given by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, and vote this through today so that the unfortunate people can have some glimmer of hope. Otherwise they will play this game that they have played about reservoirs—they will keep putting off the road for ever and a day.
The chairman of the Devon conservation forum comes from Chudleigh. I met him on Sunday and was pleased to hear that he is for the southern route. His description of the arguments for the northern route were that they were specious, illogical and inaccurate. I think that the same thing applies to those grey, faceless people who put that long advertisement in The Times today. It must have cost them a mint.

1469
Apart from the opening speakers, I get the impression, on listening to the debate so far this evening, that other speakers do not care about people. I hope that your Lordships care about people and vote for the southern route.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Clinton: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. Many years ago there was a debate on the economics of the West Country. The Okehampton bypass plays a very important part in our life in the West Country. It is just a year ago that I last spoke in your Lordships' House on this matter and I still hold the same view as I did then—much more strongly now.
As we know, the matter has been before us for a very long time. In this recent year the arguments over the northern or southern route have become even more polarised. As I see it, the time has come for a decision. This is something about which I think we all agree and is the reason for our being here this evening. I should like to make one or two points of view known, especially as I live so close to Okehampton, relatively speaking, and to other Members of your Lordships' House—in fact, 13 miles away. Thirteen seems to me to be my lucky number. I also discover that I am the 13th speaker, and we are only one-third of the way through this evening's programme.
In another place the West Country was well represented in a debate in which the Members represented their constituencies. It was very sad on that occasion that the Member for West Devon, Sir Peter Mills, was unable to attend due to ill health. The work he has put into this debate and the representations he has made on behalf of his constituents, of whom I am one, since he has been a Member have been very valuable indeed. He has been a Member for this constituency since 1964.
The debate in the other place—to which I listened most of the time—confirmed my support for the southern route which was ably put by nearly all the West Country Members of Parliament and supports what I see on the ground. I am particularly pleased that all but one of the West Country Members of your Lordships' House are in favour of the southern route, which I believe to be best. Surely local opinion and support should be considered very carefully on making such a decision as we shall do this evening. Many of your Lordships have seen the Ministry of Transport exhibition of the proposed southern route, which to me, in spite of one or two remarks about it, highlights more than ever how much better this route will fit into the countryside on the edge of Dartmoor beside the town of Okehampton. Because of its design it seems to me to reinforce beyond all reasonable doubt in landscape terms that there is only one way the road can go.
When one starts to look at the countryside north of Okehampton, which I know, I cannot see any way that the road can go north. This has been said time and time again, but it has to be repeated. Surely we should be looking to the beauty of the countryside in its overall aspects and not in isolation because the road happens to clip the edge of the national park of Dartmoor. I would be ashamed to be in sight of it if the
1470
north road was built. The road will be breaking into high quality amenity land, especially when viewed from Dartmoor.
Agriculture is part of the land of Devon as much as Dartmoor and needs just as much consideration, especially in this part of Devon which I happen to know. The argument that, because we do not need to produce so much, land of this type can be taken out of agriculture, to me is wrong. Surely the loss to these farmers means that their income will be reduced even further and that their farms will become uneconomic. As your Lordships know, farm income has been falling in real terms since 1973. Those who live on any of the so-called northern routes will lose their livelihood, as the road is much more likely to cut through the middle of their properties, increasing the severance problems. When you compare this with the southern route you find that the proposed route tends to clip the edges of farms and not go through the middle. It is very important in the case of the Coombes who live at Barton Barn and various other families, including the Woolidges at Oaklands and the Squires at Pudson, that these units become and stay viable. People really do count. The time taken to decide on a northern route will make their lives unbearable and the cost to them will be considerable. Let us not also forget the investment that they have made and also the Government grants which the nation has invested in them. This should not be lost sight of if the road should happen to go that way in years to come.
Surely farms and agricultural land are part of the environment, and we in the West Country have a good and excellent record of looking after it. One cannot take the attitude that it does not matter when a road is driven through it because it is only agricultural land. Let us also remember that most of these economic farms to the north have been farmed by families for generations, and that we shall be taking away employment and causing more years of uncertainty for them, which is very unfair.
I should like to turn to the question of the boundaries of the national parks. I know that this comment has already been made, but I think it should be repeated. Your Lordships will remember that in 1951 the boundaries of the national park were made with reference to parish boundaries and convenient roads. I know that this is well known, but it was an administration choice rather than an assessment of ecological and environmental values of land immediately within the boundary. At the moment the park boundaries are under review and I believe that extensive areas will be put forward for inclusion in or exclusion from the national park. Surely with a little foresight these boundaries can become more fluid and it should be possible for the park to be retained in size, if not even increased. This safeguard and consultation surely should reduce considerably the worry of the lovers of the national parks. The concepts, values and rules which were set up in 1951 have changed very considerably, from time to time, involving their shape, size and nature.
This completely does away with the argument that the southern route is curtailing the national park. We may find the national park will be extended. I do not believe that this part of the national park is as important as is being made out. It contains a quarry,

1471
golf course and a railway line, and because of its closeness to Okehampton one could easily be in the middle of or close to one of our bigger cities.
One further point is that as it is on the northern face of Dartmoor and cutting into the contour, it will find itself in the shade most of the daytime, which should reduce its visibility from afar and make it fit more readily into the countryside. I do not want to keep your Lordships too long, but a point has been made about access to the park from Okehampton. As far as I know, this will not change, because the railway line always acts as a boundary. If the new road is built, the road to the battle camp will stay.
People tend to drive out from Okehampton up as far as possible on the loop road, stop at the top and look back north. I think that if the road is built to the north, it would be extremely visible from there. Whether or not trees are planted, I do not think that it would be a very good environmental design.
It has been said that, in opposing the northern route, the CLA and NFU are looking after their privileged members. I believe that that is their job, and with their local knowledge surely that is right. Recently, as chairman of the local branch of the CLA, I got to know all the work which our local secretary, Major Thres, did. The CLA, through his good offices and the work he did, was able to achieve two important milestones during the course of setting up a working party and the public inquiry, and was able to put forward proposals to modify the construction costs. It also made recommendations for the benefit of the environment generally, taking some of the route out of the national park.
The CLA recommendations were not just of advantage to farmers but were also of advantage to the taxpayer, the visitor to the national park, and to the inhabitants of Okehampton. These modifications were largely made for non-agricultural reasons and it is wrong to suggest that agricultural interests disregard environmetal reasons. I hope that these two modifications will be remembered as part of what the CLA can do; they have certainly improved the way in which the southern route has been designed. More recently, our ability to be able to find extra open space, which has been touched on several times, shows how much trouble and care the local people have taken in this matter. As someone who has lived most of his life in north Devon and who has, I hope, a little local knowledge of how we live and work and what we want in that part of the world, may I ask noble Lords to support the choice for the southern route for the Okehampton bypass.
We love Dartmoor. The road will not debase it. It is part of our great county which has produced such great names as Raleigh and Drake. Please accept our considered judgment in these matters and do a service to Devon, Cornwall and the south-west. I believe that we are not spoiling the moor or the national park. Let the Department of Transport and the Government get on with the job and build the road as soon as possible on the southern route.
7.48 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, quite apart from any constitutional matters or any
1472
procedural irregularities in pressing for a southern route, apparently over large numbers of dead bodies, there are many practical reasons why a northern route is preferable, although if you listened to the endless and often misleading propaganda put out by the Department of Transport to the contrary you could be forgiven for wondering whether an alternative even existed.
For instance, you have been told that a northern route is environmentally much more damaging than a southern route. That is untrue. With the possible exception of a short stretch of road next to the East Okement River, the land to the north bears no comparision with the beauty of the land to the south, and the inspector said so in his report.
You may have been told that the farmland to the north is much too valuable to lose to a mere bypass. That may or may not be true, but the fact remains that farmland is given up to roads nearly every day, and this particular farmland is of second- and third-grade quality. Moreover, farmland values, particularly in the West Country, have dropped quite considerably since the introduction of milk quotas. Practically the whole length of the A. 30 goes through farmland, from the westernmost intersection it makes with the M.3 to its termination at Penzance. Indeed, it is often referred to as England's longest country lane.
You may be told that the people of Okehampton are overwhelmingly in favour of a southern route. This also is not true. At the last count, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has already said, 55 per cent. favoured a southern route and 45 per cent. favoured the northern option. The voting majority was a mere 104. What is true is that the majority of residents simply want a bypass quickly. They have been highly influenced by what the Secretary of State has said concerning the delay factor. This is a crucial part of the argument, and, once again, the Department of Transport has been deliberately misleading, to curry favour for the speedy adoption of the southern route.
Noble Lords may remember that after all the fuss about the extension to the M.40 in Oxfordshire had died down and a new revised route was announced, the delay factor, which up until then had been assessed by the Department of Transport to be at least four to five years was quickly revised down to two years. All experts agree that, given the goodwill, the delay in building a northern bypass need not be more than two to three years. Mr. Brian Parker, who has been mentioned several times today by various noble Lords and who is a highly qualified independent road engineer, has advised that a northern route could be in operation within five years, and this includes time for consultative procedures to take place.
There is a flourishing, expanding industrial estate in Okehampton to the north of the town. Over 660 people are employed there. It is reached by a narrow, one-way residential street leading off the present A. 30, which is the High Street. It is left by another narrow, one-way residential street which leads back on to the A.30 in the middle of the town.
The noble Lord the Minister, in his opening remarks, said that he would hate to see an additional delay in constructing a bypass for Okehampton. At last mothers would be able to cross the High Street

1473
with a pushchair in safety, as was the case in the old days. I am afraid that this is wishful thinking on the noble Lord's part, because it is a fact that over 250 lorries a day use these narrow streets on their way to and from the industrial estate. In addition, over 2,500 cars a day use the same two narrow streets on their way to and from the estate.
All these vehicles have to go through the middle of Okehampton. If a southern route is adopted this heavy traffic will still have to go through the middle of the town to get to the bypass. I think that that is rather dotty. Why build a bypass that does not, if your Lordships follow me? Of course, once safely on the bypass, having ploughed and smoked their way through all the local town traffic to get to it, they will join all the thousands of other vehicles all ploughing and smoking their way through the national park.
Consultative engineers have offered to design an appropriate intersection to connect the industrial estate to the northern route, but as a part of its propaganda campaign the Department of Transport has failed to mention this. So far as I am aware six houses would have to be demolished, two viaducts constructed and one bridge built to accommodate the southern route. The northern route would require one viaduct, albeit a rather tall one, over the East Okement River near Aggetts Quarry. No houses would be affected.
Aggetts Quarry itself is hideous, is practically worked out and employs 10 men, all of whom have been offered jobs by Meldon Quarry in the national park. On the other hand, Meldon Quarry is by no means worked out and may well wish to expand in the future, but would or could be unable to do so if a road is built next to it. The northern route I refer to and recommend is the red route on the public consultation plan, and accepted by the joint committee.
The argument that a new road to the north would be seen by visitors to the national park when looking over Okehampton is to my mind ludicrous. Visitors to the national park will want to look at it, not at an ordinary sort of small town with its fair share of ugly landmarks such as the disused railway station, the industrial estate and the gasworks. No, my Lords, it is the residents of Okehampton we must be concerned about. It is their view that will be ruined if a concrete jungle is constructed to the south, destroying as it goes forest walks, ancient pathways, over 1,000 mature hardwood trees and wildlife habitats, and most importantly of all breaching the trust that designated Meldon Wood a secure open space in perpetuity.
It is proposed to extend the improvements to the A. 30 westwards to join up with the Launceston bypass. Fine, but the A. 30 enters and leaves Okehampton to the north of the national park, so why build to the south? Several northern Devon and Cornish towns would be far better served by a northern route, as would the town of Okehampton itself.
Another factor which I doubt has been seriously considered by the Department of Transport is that the weather conditions on the moor itself are often very severe not only from snow, which tends to drift badly, but also from mist and fog, which anyone who knows the area will tell you often clings to the side of the moor which would be traversed by a southern route, while
1474
the town, lower down, remains barely affected. This has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he quoted from a letter sent by a lorry driver who has had great experience of this route.
The argument much put about by those in favour of a southern route that it could be constructed much more quickly than a northern alternative, thereby speeding up traffic on its way to Cornwall, is again a bit dotty. The A. 30 contains 14 bottlenecks between the M.3 and Exeter. I know, as I live very near it as it passes through Somerset and Dorset. I was forced to use it for many years before its alternative, the A.303, was vastly improved. It is a diabolical road, and no one in their right mind would dream of using it if they wanted to get to the West Country quickly. It is a nightmare.
Surely they would be much better advised to take the M.4, the M.5 and then the much improved A. 38. For people wanting to travel west, but who live further south, it would be sensible to take the A.303, the M.5 and the A.38. If you are taking a lazy, meandering sort of a holiday, fine, take the A.30, but if you are in a hurry do not consider it.
We all accept that Okehampton needs a bypass, but not one that will ruin a much loved, much used and much prized local and national amenity, and one which will violate the principle of road development of national parks. This is too high a price to pay for expediency, and it sets dangerous precedents. I urge your Lordships to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words in this debate because I spent over 20 years near Okehampton and visited it a great deal. I should also like to say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, here because he has been away for some considerable time and we missed him very much.
I was simply horrified by what the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, said when he suggested that the traffic might go round through Plymouth. When one thinks that 17,000 motorists pass through Okehampton on a Saturday and 30,000 vehicles are expected to go through it in the next century, I hope he will not consider that plan again.
I should also like to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, because on many occasions we have not agreed, but on the other hand he has been kind to me in helping me with some legal problems, especially when we were both fighting for one special road in Plymouth.
I am not qualified to go into all the details which have been gone into by other people, but I should like to think about the future of the people of Cornwall. This bypass is really for the Cornish people. We want to see that they have better prosperity in the future and we want those who go on holidays to find it both interesting and easy to get to. One of the difficulties at the moment is long hours of travelling which causes extra accidents because people are fatigued by the time they reach Okehampton and they become impetuous, and so on. Therefore, they need an easier way to get there.

1475
In asking your Lordships to pass this Bill today I believe that the main thing is to think of the prosperity of Cornwall in the future. It is especially essential to take action quickly because Cornwall is going through a difficult time. They may have to close some tin mines, or even shut down the lot, which will mean that they will need new industries.
Devon and Cornwall, as probably noble Lords will know, have not always agreed on projects in the past. The county council and the borough of West Devon, however, are fully in agreement on this occasion and they both desire the southern route. I am all for preservation of public land, but in this case it would appear that the CLA recently found, as I think has been mentioned once or twice before, 22 acres which can be transferred, we hope, to the Department of Transport. I think in all there are about 37·5 acres available to make up for the land that may be taken.
Every year when the weather is not good the local people have to have rationed water. As is well known to some noble Lords, I presented a Private Member's Bill which I got through the House of Commons by 120 to 23 votes. It then went to the committee and, much to my regret and probably to some people's joy, it was turned down on the grounds that they did not see it was practicable from the point of view of what had been proposed in the Bill. On this occasion we have enormous support locally. We have also had ecology people there and every other type of person interested in birds and so on. There is no road going round this reservoir-to-be, and it was turned down. Now every other year or even more often the water has to be rationed and I have lots of letters asking why I did not press it further. However, I could not because of the way it was turned down by the committee.
The local support consists of five local Members of Parliament, and the Cornish and Devon Members of Parliament together make 16. There are only two against. This is also supported by the West Devon and Cornish District Councils, by Okehampton Town Council and many other parish councils, by the trade unions, the National Farmers Union, the CLA and the Cornish branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I could go on to mention many other organisations; it reminds me of the song about Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. To my knowledge this is one of the first times that all these people have got together.
This small town, 250 miles from here, is in need of further employment. Employment in the County of Cornwall varies from 26·7 to 14 per cent. in Launceston. Launceston is lower because people go to Plymouth to work in the dockyards, but as the dockyard workforce is to be cut by at least 2,000, life will be difficult for them.
The lowest average wage of any county in Britain is in Cornwall. Therefore it needs good roads and easy access, especially for raw materials and vegetables carried on the roads. Everyone is worried about unemployment. In the newspaper the other day I read that a French Minister was being questioned about how he dealt with getting planning powers through. His answer in relation to the roads was:
"If you want to clear the swamp—you do not consult the frogs".
We do a great deal of consulting in this country and we get rather bogged down.
1476
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, is to speak later. He is the chairman of the Devon Development Commission. Speaking of the need for the Okehampton bypass he has said that up to 5,000 people could be taken off the dole in Cornwall. I hope that when he speaks he will be able to say whether he was correctly reported.
I should like to finish by quoting Lord Courtenay. He is a member of the council of the Devon Trust for Nature Conservation, and he stated:
"Any northern route on the other hand inevitably crosses high ground to the north of Okehampton involving a viaduct and cuttings. It is. of course, much longer involving more land as well as more cost and…will cause a great scar across a very beautiful part of Devon countryside which will be visible from miles around and not least from many parts of the Dartmoor National Park".
I hope that we shall consider today not just all the legal position and the wishes of our own hearts, but think of the people in the county of Devon and also, particuarly, those in the county of Cornwall who need help in the very near future.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am extremely glad to follow the noble Baroness because I agree that this is really an issue for the people of Cornwall and Devon which is of absolutely vital economic importance. I hope that it will not be thought that if those of us in favour of the Bill make much shorter speeches than those who are against it it will not be thought that we are any less convinced of the merits of the case that we support. Therefore I hope it will be acceptable if at this hour I make one or two short points without attempting fully to argue them as I should prefer to do in other circumstances.
I am sure the House was extremely entertained as ever by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, when he introduced his amendment. I was wondering when he was going to get to Okehampton, but I do not think he ever did. In fact the whole of his case was based on constitutional objections, as I understood it; the main pillar was a speech by the late Arthur Greenwood. Although I personally had the highest regard for and the friendship of that gentleman, a distinguished Labour Minister, I think he would have been surprised, if some 40 years later, his obiter dicta were being given such importance in this amendment. In fact the real constitutional issue posed by the noble Lord's amendment is equivalent to this House rejecting a Bill on Second Reading that has already passed through the other place. As I understand it, if that amendment is carried the Bill falls and that will have considerable consequences for the road.
My noble friend Lord Stallard spoke very feelingly and I can well understand that the members of the joint committee will be upset if the House does not accept their judgment. On the other hand, it would be absolute nonsense if, after committees had considered matters and after a full debate in this Chamber or in another place, the function open to the rest of us was merely to rubber stamp the conclusions of a small committee. I believe that, for whatever reason, they came to the wrong conclusion. Looking at the report, some of the members of the committee who sat through the proceedings also thought that the majority had come to the wrong conclusion. Equally, I am sure

1477
none of us would in principle wish to do anything that would seriously interfere with the status and the purpose of the national parks; but surely every incursion which from time to time has to be made in national parks has to be judged on its merits. After all, I think every one of them seems to have large quarries with all that involves with lorries attached thereto. Thus, to have another road on the very edge of Dartmoor does not seem to me to be such a scandalous invasion as has been suggested by some other speakers.
I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning underlined the issue. He said that what we have to consider is: should there be a bypass for Okehampton, and is what is proposed a reasonable solution to what I understand is the unanimous wish of everyone in the House, and certainly, as far as I understand it, the universal wish of all the persons connected with that town and the area around it?
I happen to think that, in principle, following the contours would create a better road than the alternative which it would seem would go across the skyline on the escarpment. The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, mentioned the M.40. Happily, I managed to avoid having any Joint Select Committees or having to have legislation but there was almost as much fuss about the extension of the M.40 to Oxford as there has been about this particular matter. I am bound to say that when I went to look at the routes, I had no hesitation in backing the department's plan for the road to follow the contours, rather than go, as a scar, right across the escarpment. Indeed, when the road was built, I did not hear anyone complain about the M.40 to Oxford. I firmly believe that if and when, (as I hope it will be) in three years' time, the Okehampton bypass is completed, people will not complain about that.
Finally, I ask noble Lords to reflect on the history of this affair, which fortunately is symptomatic and not unique in the history of our planning and road development procedures. It is an absolute nonsense that before five miles of road can be built, it takes 20 years, a public inquiry of 96 days (in other circumstances, even the inspectors have actually been maltreated and physically assaulted by objectors), then a joint Select Committee for 15 days and then this House sitting into the small hours to consider the matter. For example, in relation to the M.25, it is totally ridiculous that three-quarters of the road is built and then here and there, because of objections, the full economic benefits and the life-saving benefits are affected. I say life-saving benefits because it is well appreciated that good motorways and dual carriageway roads are much safer and have less serious accidents than the existing congested single carriageway roads.
All this is taking place really simply because we are not prepared to face up to a different set of procedures. I hope that not only will this Bill go through tonight but that in consequence there will be serious thought given to a completely new way of planning our roads. After all, it is a national responsibility. In 1979 I produced a national plan for roads and, unhappily, only a small part of that has been carried out. Roads are funded by central Government. It is therefore in my judgment the responsibility of Parliament and not a
1478
decision that can be delegated to anyone else. I think it is a very great pity that some better way cannot be found of managing our affairs than the present very troublesome circumstances. As many people have said, I hope that at least in relation to these particular five miles, we settle the matter favourably tonight.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. First, perhaps I may declare an interest in that for most of my life I have been a member of the CPRE. I am also a member of the National Parks Authority for Northumberland. Thus, you could say that one side of me has fairly green antecedents. One the other hand, I must declare my interest as chairman of the Development Commission, England's rural development agency.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the Scottish song that suggests that it is possible to take either the high road or the low road. In this case, sadly, it must be one or the other. Like other noble Lords, I had my doubts, so I should like to share with you the thought processes that have led me to believe that there is no alternative but to proceed with the southern road.
First, I tried to look at the problem as if it had affected my own national park. Had it done so, I should have been passionate in the defence of its rurality and its antiquity. However, at the same time I would hope that I could have tried to take, if there is such a thing, a more objective view, and attempt to consider the wider national aspects.
Therefore, I have taken the trouble to find out how many major roads run through national parks in England and Wales. There are precisely 18. Indeed, both the A.30 and the A.38 run through Dartmoor national park and the A.38 cuts into it to a far greater extent than the proposed southern route. Thus, there is nothing new in trunk roads running through national parks; what matters is the degree of harm.
Then, also like the noble Lord, Lord Saint Levan, who is due to speak tonight, I have tried to approach the problem as a longstanding CPRE member.There are, indeed, some environmental issues on which I should go to the cross, and I deeply respect the views of others who believe that, once designated, national parks should be sacrosanct. But in fact there are few absolutes in this matter. While I accept that this is a new road, in reality, the southern route will not slash through the middle of the park. If it did, I should be wholly against it. We are not talking about a major incursion. The proposed route, as others have well said, will only impinge upon the park's periphery.
Here I agree very much with the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, that there is some force in the argument that if one was starting from scratch, the northern route would be no less environmentally damaging to our landscape heritage. Sadly, whichever route is taken, the landscape has to suffer.
Then I have tried to look at the problem from the point of view of my interest in promoting the sensible economic development of rural England, or, to put it more concisely, from the point of view of my interest in the creation of jobs. It is difficult to measure the effect of traffic delays and congestion, but just because it is almost impossible to quantify the economic effect

1479
of a serious bottleneck, it does not mean to say that one should not attempt to do so. I am, then, wholly convinced that the traffic bottleneck at Okehampton is strangling the economic development of the southwest. It is my considered view that the failure to build the bypass around Okehampton has resulted in the loss of many thousand of jobs—jobs that would otherwise be there, had the bypass been built. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for raising this point. We would debate for hours on the statistics of the job losses. However, I am sure we can agree on one point, and that is that the failure to build a bypass has cost jobs—and many of them.
It is at this point that my head and my heart start to tussle. In this debate we will all be branded either as Philistines or as being uncaring about the work prospects of others. This greatly over-simplifies the issue. Thus I have great sympathy with Lady Sayer, and deeply respect her views. My heart tells me that she may well be right, but my head tells me that the needs of the unemployed favour a rapid solution.
In the late 1970s my predecessor as chairman of the Development Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who very much regrets that he is unable to be here today, took a close personal interest in the economic development of the south-west. Indeed, he was instrumental in assisting Okehampton to become an economic anchor-point for the whole area. He has asked me to say that he is acutely aware of the terrible traffic problems in the town and believes, like myself, that they are a major hindrance to the further growth of business confidence in the south-west. He also, for that reason, favours a rapid solution to the problem by the building of the southern route. The road to Okehampton is not exactly the road to Damascus, but we both got converted when stuck in a traffic jam.
Other noble Lords have dealt with the point that it is unconstitutional for the Government to defy the findings of a joint committee, albeit the committee greatly exceeded its real remit. There are some who put great store by procedural arguments and procedural arrangements.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. He would have heard my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who was a member of the joint committee, and other noble Lords state quite clearly that two officials from either House had to decide whether the general petition could be referred to the joint committee. The officials of both Houses decided that the general petition could be so referred. Is he now saying that the officials of both Houses were wrong in that decision?
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I thought that we were led to believe earlier today that that advice might have been erroneous. Your Lordships will forgive me if I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, but I thought that he indicated that it was surprising that that particular joint committee had appeared to exceed the precise point which they were asked to look into, which was the question of the transfer of common land.
Whichever way one looks at this, I must say that I prefer not to get stuck on procedural arrangements; I should prefer to look at the democratic support for the
1480
Government's choice. Here I understand that all the local authorities in the south-west support it, not to mention the town and parish councils of West Devon. Like others of your Lordships, I have been inundated, in the evidence of support for the southern route, by those whose livelihoods are affected by the delays at Okehampton and I find such evidence very persuasive and more persuasive than procedural points.
There is in my mind no doubt now that the public good would be best served by building on the southern route. It is the only one recommended by the public inquiry, it is the shortest route, the most economic route both to build and not least for the motorist who will use it and, above all, it is the route that will most quickly help the development of jobs in the southwest. Moreover, it is the route that is clearly preferred by the elected representatives of that region and the country. It is for those reasons that we should reject the first amendment before us today.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am glad to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, if only to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who is a great scintillating star in the field of the law, does not twinkle quite so brightly in the field of parliamentary procedure. I will leave it at that. I myself would say what a thousand pities it is—and I hope that everyone would agree with this—that in 1964 the Devon County Council was not allowed to proceed, or did not proceed, whichever is right, with the northern route, which they favoured at that time—all that time ago; 21 years ago.
If that had happened we should have been saved countless words and millions of pounds. It would have been cheaper both relatively and actually if that had happened. We must learn this awful lesson, and we must not let this happen again. We must try to apportion blame where it is deserved; but I think that we should all examine ourselves as to what we contributed towards that blame, which has led to this loss of 21 years and of what I consider to be the better route.
I, myself—and this is always with the benefit of hindsight—should like the Government to have taken the same view as did the Devon County Council in 1964, and to have instructed the inspector not to look at the southern route because it passed through a national park: not merely on national park policy grounds but also on any estimate of the future cost of any inquiries which would involve routes going through a national park and all the divisive conflicts before inspectors, before joint committees and before Parliament that would follow. I think that was a very grave mistake, and if anything should be learned from this sorry tale it is that the Government should steer clear of national parks at all costs.
Ninety-six days before the inspector, 15 or so before the joint committee and millions of pounds—not just hundreds of thousand and certainly not £50,000, but more like millions—have been lost, to the great cost of the inhabitants of Okehampton and of the West Country. This is something of which we should all be ashamed, and not least, I would say, that great department of state, the Ministry of Transport. Quite

1481
recently I had the pleasure to hand out a bouquet to them for the very imaginative way in which they responded to amendments to the Transport Bill, to the advantage of the elderly and disabled. I now feel like hurling brickbats at them; but I shall restrain myself from doing so except to say that I very much hope that they will feel sufficiently guilty to examine the procedures which have led to this catastrophic delay and what I consider to be this wrong decision.
The Government—and I say this with hindsight—really had three choices: to retain the national parks policy unequivocally and go for the northern route; be equally bold (and by the same token, equally wrong) and overturn the national parks policy avowedly and bulldoze through the southern route—of course, I do not recommend that course—or what in effect they did which is to say, "Don't know—we will abide by" (and here one must pause for a moment) "the inspector's report or the decision of Parliament". Of course, that is a very convenient thing to do if both the inspector's report and the decision of Parliament is the same, but you get into trouble if they are not. That is what has happend. It really is quite as simple as that. I do not regard anyone as a villain in this because I think that in this case, as in almost all cases where there are administrative mistakes, they were made by muddle and not by villainy, and I think to a certain extent the muddle has been caused by the parliamentary procedure which was chosen.
Before I turn to the parliamentary procedure, may I briefly talk about the danger of piecemeal encroachment of national and indeed, other parks, including royal parks. I say "encroachment". I do not want to use the exaggerated language of The Times that there is a fear of the concreting over of the Lake District. Of course, there is no such fear. Rather, I recall an admirable article in the Daily Express (I think it was) by Sir Osbert Lancaster. It was about Hyde Park—and that is a royal park. In this characteristic and inimitable way he drew attention to the fact that Hyde Park is about the same size as Central Park, New York, and that if there was to be piecemeal encroachment of Hyde Park it would soon turn into a backyard with no sun and no light instead of the beautiful open space that we know as Hyde Park with a low skyline which is spoiled chiefly by the Hilton Hotel and the tower block of Knightsbridge Barracks. So if we had had that piecemeal encroachment we would have had Central Park instead of Hyde Park: that is the way he graphically put it. The same applies pari passu to national parks.
While on the subject of Hyde Park, if I may, I should like to mention with affection and with honour the late Lord Conesford. He played a leading part in resisting, unsuccessfully, the Hyde Park Bill—which, incidentally, was a hybrid Bill, and I will revert to that. He found the Bill's Title intolerable. It was entitled "Park Lane (Improvement) Bill". He moved an amendment so that the Short Title would be more accurately descriptive. His amendment was:
"Leave out 'Park Lane (Improvement)' and insert 'Hyde Park (Diminution)'."
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is quite a wit, was speaking for the Government and he resisted this amendment on the only possible grounds on which it
1482
could be resisted, which was that it was a frivolous amendment.
By the same token this confirmation Bill might well be entitled "Dartmoor National Park (Diminution) Bill", for that is what it is. If you are really determined to diminish Hyde Park in order to improve the flow in Park Lane it is, I suppose, expecting too much of any Government to admit as much. But perhaps the Government will seriously consider whether they might have proceeded by way of a hybrid Bill in the case of the Dartmoor National Park, as they did in the case of Hyde Park, instead of by means of a special procedure order.
I should like to say a brief word about special procedure orders. I have not lived with them quite so long as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who was in at their birth in 1945, but I have lived with them for three-quarters of their years of existence. Not to make too long a story about it (because the history has been so well related by the noble Lords, Lord Molson. Lord Foot and others) I would say they have caused almost nothing but trouble from the start. This is a classic example of the muddle Governments get into when they seek to regulate parliamentary procedure by Act of Parliament.
I seriously suggest that in the light of this appalling muddle and delay—over 21 years, and perhaps more—the special procedure order procedure might be examined with a view to its being amended, possibly by merely the amendment of Section 6 or else by scrapping it altogether. Her Majesty's Government might call in aid the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who is an expert in finding compelling reasons for repealing Acts of Parliament which either are no longer of practical utility or which sometimes do more harm than good.
But I have no doubt of the benevolent intentions, as rehearsed by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, of Mr. Arthur Greenwood and his Government when this legislation was introduced. It seemed to follow so naturally from wartime regulations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred, and which seemed a sort of civilised and right way of proceeding, with parliamentary safeguards. Of course, the thinking in 1945 was not the same as the thinking in 1985; and, as we have heard in the course of this debate, the special order procedure was thoroughly reviewed by Mr. Henry Brooke and his committee, and indeed it was amended. Even so, quite clearly it is not satisfactory in the light of all we have heard today.
So I would ask whether some serious consideration should not be given to the use of the hybrid or Private Bill procedure, whichever is more appropriate in a particular case, but with special provision for national parks and possibly certain other parks and national trust land. These could be regulated by the Standing Orders of both Houses, which are far more flexible and easy to change if we find we run into trouble than statutory provisions, which cannot be changed and which land us in the soup, as we are today.
If I may, I should like to talk about only one of the so-called constitutional issues which have been talked about this evening: that is, whether Members of the House are entilted to vote for or should feel inhibited from voting against this Bill. That, of course, has been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in

1483
speaking to his amendment; by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who is now sitting on the Woolsack; and by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, in his letter to The Times recently, among others.
To my mind there are two guidelines which we have before us since the war, and it is really only since the war that we can look for guidelines. The first is the Parliament Acts, and they clearly envisage that this House can vote against Public Bills, for they make provision in the event of that happening; so it is clearly a possible thing to be done. It was envisaged in 1911, and it was not taken away in 1949. It is still there. It can be done by statute.
Secondly, there is the "self-denying ordinance", which I think is the proper way of putting it. That is often called "the Salisbury doctrine of the mandate", and I would stress the words "of the mandate". That forms the basis of the reason why both Conservative and Labour Oppositions since the war have refrained from voting against the principle of Government mandated Bills, especially those brought from the Commons. This is what Lord Salisbury said in 1964 when referring to the Conservative Opposition formulating their policy when dealing with Labour Bills. He said that they had followed (and I quote),
"the broad guiding rule that what had been in the Labour Party programme at the preceding General Election should be regarded as having been approved by the British people…when … measures were introduced which had not been in the Labour Party manifesto at the preceding election, we reserved full liberty of action."
That rule was re-interpreted (or perhaps interpreted) in 1975 by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he said:
"We have hitherto taken the view that the will of the elected House must in the end prevail but that there should be a second House which has the opportunity—in rare cases, perhaps—to enforce a delay in which there can be a reassessment by Government, by parties and by the people of this country of the rights or wrongs of an issue."
I grant that both those quotations are from Conservative Leaders of the Opposition, but I think it is right to say by and large that the Labour Opposition have followed those guidelines. They did breach them once, when the late Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough—I think possibly under the enthusiastic influence of the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth—put down a reasoned amendment asking the House to decline to pass the London Government Bill. But I think perhaps that ought not to be drawn into precedent.
Surely—and I must be brief—with these precedents in mind it is obvious that the House is not as robust as it used to be. The pronouncements of the late Lord Salisbury and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, are much less restrictive and less stringent than more recent warnings given by what the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, called "the heavy guns" and what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, called less respectfully, "the heavy mob below the gangway" on the Conservative Benches.
Referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said in his recent letter to The Times, if I may say so to the noble Lord I simply do not think it is true to say, as he said—and I quote from his letter:
"The Government defeats in the present Parliament and in previous Parliaments have all been on amendments to Bills which have never placed them in complete jeopardy."
1484
I have only to remind the noble Lord that the Bill for the Parliament Act 1949 was rejected by the House, though it was clearly mandated. I can give him many other instances since.
Anyway, what I call the accepted convention is surely that this House refrains from voting against the principle of mainstream Government legislation except where it is clearly not mandated and this House considers that it calls for a pause for thought. That is the accepted convention which of course must be subject to reinterpretation in the light of the political circumstances of the time and of the merits of each particular Bill. If that principle is eroded, then the extent of the powers of this House will be diminished by a thousand cuts, just like the extent of the national parks will be diminished if nothing is said or done to countervail the present trend.
The words of some noble Lords who have made cautionary utterances about amendments in this House may be crammed into their mouths when, unhappily, they may be in opposition and they seek to move what they consider to be a constructive amendment, and they may have their own words held up against them, that they are indeed wrecking amendments—
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is the noble Lord justifying wrecking amendments?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: No, my Lords; indeed I am not. But if I may dwell for a moment on the word "wrecking" it is not a word that is known to Erskine May. Noble Lords will not find it in the Standing Orders of either House, because it is so imprecise. What is a constructive amendment to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, will be a wrecking amendment to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and vice versa. I say no more about wrecking amendments than that.
I would say, in conclusion, that, though I personally am not going to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, I see no reason why anyone should not do so if he wishes. I am not voting for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because I do not wish to prolong the agony and for no other reason. I wish that I could, but I will not. I shall vote instead for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I am grateful to him for tabling that and for giving me the opportunity to register my vote accordingly.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying how much I agree with one of the early points made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and made earlier still in almost exactly the same words by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which is how very fortunate it is that the Ministry of Transport did not make up its mind a long time ago to respect the views about the national park. If it had taken that course, the bypass would have been built long ago and we would not be having the troubles that we are having now.
The people who support the Bill have, I think, been supporting it mainly by quite general arguments,

1485
which could be reduced to saying that no part of the national park should ever be taken. Put in that way, that is a proposition with which I would agree, because it is very important that we should keep what we have. But to some extent that is now water under the bridge, and in the rest of my speech I shall speak from a particular point of view, which is that I live in Cornwall and, until quite recently, had to drive regularly at all times and in all seasons of the year on the A.30 through Okehampton. Whatever the outcome of this, we ought to think a little about the position of the people of Cornwall who depend almost entirely on the A.30 for their transport, where they are now held up by the Okehampton blockage.
This first came to my notice in 1968 when there was a lot of talk about building a bypass. Since then, the position has gradually become worse and worse and it will continue to get worse. The main reasons for this are, first, that in 1968 a lot of goods traffic went into Cornwall by rail, but there is now very little use of rail for the transport of goods, as is happening all over the country. Secondly, there is not only a heavier load to be carried because of that, but also, because of the general growth of the national income, the total amount of goods to be moved has increased, so that the load has gone up there.
The third reason, with which we are all familiar, is that an enormous number of people in this country now have a motor-car and a great many of them, I am glad to say, use their cars in the summer to go to south-west England, especially to Cornwall, and they make the congestion very much worse than they used to do. It is a very bad entry to and a very bad departure from Cornwall, when practically all of these people have to sit in their cars breathing the fumes of other cars for two or three hours or even more.
The result of this is that the great bulk of the people in the south-west, whatever they might have thought about the general proposition some time ago, are now concentrating almost entirely on the desire for something to be done now. From that point of view, I think they feel very much as the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, said earlier—that they have had a very bad deal. First, there were the discussions in 1968. Then there was an inspector who came down in favour of the southern route; and after a considerable delay the Ministry accepted that. We then had the committee, which has been discussed so much. And now, if our Lordships accept the Motion, they will feel that they are back to square one.
Whatever people say about how the process might be accelerated, they feel absolutely certain that the northern route will take a great deal longer than the southern route, because all the preliminary work has been done for the southern route and practically none for the northern one. They will feel that the whole planning capacity and ability of the country comes out of this very badly, because this is a problem that was foreseen and that could have been dealt with in a satisfactory way much earlier on.
It is not the Government who will suffer if they are defeated on this issue; it is the very large number of people who use the road and all the people concerned with transport who see the position getting worse and
1486
worse. Even away from the summer season, there are bad jams all the time. For about the whole five miles the roads are rather narrow and often they go through towns. Because, perhaps, of a slow lorry, what I once referred to in a debate as a gravity-assisted lorry (one that goes very well down hill) jams can build up.
I feel that at least we should bear in mind tonight that it is the people who use the road, particularly the people of Cornwall who depend so much on it. who will be the ones to suffer at the very best for three years and at the very worse for heaven knows how long. We cannot say even now, if the southern route is rejected, that the northern route will be automatically started on straight away. We can all make guesses about that, according to where our emotions lie, but the people who have lived through it will not believe there is going to be a bypass until they see it.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I yield to no one in my love of and support for the national parks. I am currently president of the Friends of the Lake District. Back in the early 1970s I produced a report on the national parks, published in the days when the rubbishing of reports before reading them was not such a developed art as it has become since. The whole report was courteously received by a Government of the opposite complexion to myself. Paragraph 15.6 was taken over and used verbatim to form the kernel of Circular 4/76, which is at the centre of the issue we are discussing today.
I want strongly to support the Government both in their general approach to this and in the particular Bill before us. But I want to deal gently, if I can, with their opponents—with my noble friend Lord Molson, because when I joined the Department of the Environment back in 1970 with responsibility for these countryside matters he was generous in his advice and guidance and I am most grateful to him for it. I want to deal gently with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, because as a fellow president of one of the associations of local government I shall need his support when dealing with central Government in battles that lie ahead of us. I want to deal gently with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, not only because of my personal respect for him but because of my regard for the organisation which he heads, the Council for National Parks, which has done and is still capable of doing an enormously useful job.
But I regard the persistent campaign which has gone on since the inquiry as totally misconceived. None of us ought to have been discussing the main issue since that inquiry ended. The Select Committee ought not to have been discussing it. We ought not to be discussing it now, and those who have been persistent in discussing it have in my view done the whole cause of conservation a great deal of harm. In the long run and in the perspective of history, that will be seen to have been the case. The inquiry had Circular 4/76—it did not abrogate it; it did not set it to one side; it did not override it; it had it right at the centre of the whole inquiry. The first question was, "Is there a compelling need for a road past Okehampton?" No one has disagreed with that. The second question was. "Is there a reasonable alternative to the southern route?" After very careful consideration over 96 days, spread

1487
over nine months, the inspector came out completely and categorically in favour of the southern route. You cannot have a better way of discussing these issues than a public local inquiry. It has been a great mistake to persist in trying to raise that central issue again and elsewhere.
The only outstanding issue now is the exchange of open space land. That will be settled by our vote tonight. Even when it has been settled, I think there is still a job to be done—probably by an investigative journalist. I hope he will find out, and let us know in an article in a journal some day, what on earth happened to the offer of open space land while the inquiry was going on. The offer has now been discovered and for the life of me I cannot believe that it was not around somewhere during the inquiry. Why on earth it was not raised I cannot understand.
The same journalist will also have to discover how on earth it was that the Ministry of Transport ever supposed that they could offer less land than was needed and expect the Dartmoor Preservation Authority not to exploit the loophole that that left open for them. It is that which has led to this enormous delay. However, I do not put that question to my noble friend tonight because I am sure he does not have the whole answer; and even if he had I doubt if he would give it to us.
When we come to vote tonight, in support of the Government I hope, and against both these amendments, we can, as my noble friend Lord Vinson said, vote in the certain knowledge that we have the support of all the local authorities in the West Country—both county councils, all the district councils, all the parish councils and almost all the Members of Parliament, except for one whose constituency is furthest from the scene and is almost totally unaffected by the road that we are discussing. I hope that when a vote is cast in favour of this Bill the department will not only get on with the construction with all due dispatch but will find ways and means, whenever the weather and the light permit, of putting into it the maximum amount of overtime possible so that all the local people whose economies have been harmed and whose lives have been made miserable by this delay will to some extent be compensated, and enabled to enjoy their bypass at the earliest possible date.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandford has been commendably brief. I hope I can follow suit and with luck your Lordships might then be in bed by at least midnight.
I was also on the committee along with the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Airedale. Unlike them, I came to a different conclusion in deciding the question of whether we should recommend the confirmation of the two compulsory purchase orders. As has been stated, these two compulsory purchase orders were petitioned again. The petition went to the Chairman of Committees and to his counterpart in the Commons. They confirmed that it was a proper petition. As a result, the Select Committee was bound to consider all the matters that were contained in the petition. I accept that point and I do not take the point
1488
of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that we were led up the garden path in considering more than the mere compulsory purchase orders. We had to consider the whole petition. It might have been that the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means were wrong—I do not know—but there is no appeal against that. The fact is that we had to consider it.
To my way of thinking, that resulted in the committee being something of a quasi court of appeal against the planning inspector. That is where the system breaks down. It becomes a flawed court of appeal in that it cannot consider all the evidence. This is no criticism of what the committee did, but we did not receive evidence from, say, the opponents to any given northern route. They presumably did not consider appearing in front of the committee. I am not sure whether they were even entitled to do so. It was considered that we might confine ourselves entirely to compulsory purchase orders. Obviously we did not do so but broadened out the whole petition. As a result, various people were not represented who might otherwise have been represented.
If this Bill does not succeed owing to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, or whatever, and the department have to go ahead with a northern route, then both interested parties will protest against any given northern route at a public inquiry. However much the committee asked for goodwill in getting the northern route, I am sure that whereas they will get that goodwill from the department, they will not get it from the said objectors to the northern route. There will be a bitterly fought public inquiry which could last another 96 days. There could be further delay.
The subject of delay brings me on to the question of time, which the committee considered to some extent. We heard from a witness for the petitioners, Mr. Parker, who stated that there would be a five-year delay; that is to say, a northern route would take five years longer than a southern route—in other words, a total of eight years and not a total of five years as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea. Those people who have been suggesting recently in letters to the press that a northern route could be completed by 1990 are living in cloud cuckoo land. It just would not be possible. As I said, even the witness for the petitioners reckoned on a five-year delay. That seems very optimistic. The department's witness, a Mr. Wedd, stated that if a northern route were chosen, the department would more or less have to go back to square one. We know from what was said earlier by my noble friend Lord Caithness that on average it takes 13 years to build a road. The department reckon that they can probably complete it in nine years. That is a six-year delay as compared with the southern route, which we could have by 1988.
It would be a minimum six-year delay. A protracted public inquiry and various geological difficulties—such as the new evidence of cadmium, or something else—on the northern route could lead to even greater delays. It might even lead to the road being lost for ever. I do not believe that the people of Okehampton and Devon, or of Cornwall for that matter, want to take that risk.

1489
I should like to deal very briefly with the reasons why I came to my decision, after sitting on the committee, that the order should be confirmed, why I preferred the southern route, and why I felt that any northern route would not be a reasonably alternative. Reference has been made to Circular 4/76 which followed the report of my noble friend. We all know that it stated that no new trunk road should go though a national park unless there was no reasonable alternative. It is agreed by everyone that such is still government policy.
It has been argued that the northern route is a reasonable alternative. The proponents say that all the land between Okehampton and Devon is similar to that in the north, and so if the bypass can go though that land, why can it not go through the land in the north? I do not believe that that is the proper approach. One has to start with what is a natural route, and quite obviously it is that to the south, ignoring first the question of the national park. After all, that is where our forefathers put the railway line. They put the railway line there for the sensible reason that it is where one would put a road.
Having decided that the southern route is the natural route, one must then use the test of whether the northern route is a reasonable alternative. I do not think that it is a reasonable alternative. Because time is getting on, I shall try to give briefly the reasons why I do not believe that any northern route is reasonable.I have written down six or seven different reasons. I accept that none of them on its own would be enough to make the northern route an unreasonable alternative but together they do.
There is first the question of cost. I agree that the extra cost is not much. It is a matter of just a few million pounds. In fact, a few million pounds is quite a lot of money; it would be 20 per cent. more expensive, and that does seem quite a lot more. Secondly, the northern route would be longer; only by a mile, but one mile over five or six miles is an appreciable difference. Thirdly, there is the question of local preference. I know that it is also a question of a national park but local preferences ought to be taken into account. I am not saying that they should be paramount but everyone agrees that all local authorities are in favour of the southern route. The only test of publc opinion showed 55 per cent. in favour of the southern route as opposed to 45 per cent. in favour of the northern route, which seems to be quite a big margin, whatever people may say.
Fourthly, there is the question of employment. I am not sure whether anyone has already mentioned this but any northern route would affect the agate quarry which is near what would have to be the Knowle viaduct. That quarry would probably have to cease operation because it would be unable to continue blasting. Fifthly, there is the question of agricultural land. The evidence given to the committee was that the northern land was not that much better than the southern land. I am no great expert on agriculture but when I visited the area it struck me that the northern land looked far better, with really good grassland. There is also the question of severance, which would affect the farms to the north far worse than those to the south.
1490
I should also mention, as no other speaker seems to have done so—I do not know whether the Government will—that there is Government Circular No. 75/76 which is still Government policy. This states that one should try to use less good agricultural land rather than the better agricultural land. I agree that we have the further complication of Circular 4/76, so there are slightly conflicting Government policies.
Sixthly, there is an archaeological factor. Sadly, for reasons of saving time, the petitioners did not call their archaeological witness. However, the department produced an archaeological witness who said that there were various sites which would be affected by a northern route. Therefore one must leave that open, but the fact is that both the northern and the southern routes would affect various archaeological sites.
Seventhly, on the landscape question I think that there is a very clear balance in favour of the southern route. As I said earlier, it is the natural route. It fits into the land. It will be easy to disguise it with trees. In passing, it is interesting to note that the department stated in evidence to the committee that it is the second largest planter of trees in the country; for which it deserves full praise.
I admit that the southern route has two viaducts. However, for the northern route the viaduct which will be necessary will be far bigger and far more intrusive, especially from the moor, as will the rest of the northern route. As I think was stated by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, it will be visible from the moor, and because it will involve a series of cuttings and embankments it will be difficult to hide, even by the planting of trees. If anything, trees will emphasise the scar that would be produced. I think everyone is agreed that the southern route can be completed within three years. There is some dispute as to how long the northern route will take. My own view is that it will be six years on top of the three years; that is, nine years as the absolute minimum. It could be longer, and it could even be a question of never seeing it at all.
Those are my reasons. I may have forgotten some. Together they make any northern route unreasonable. Since the Select Committee reported I gather certain other matters have arisen, such as cadmium in the bog. At any rate something scientific, which I do not understand, has been mentioned. That presumably makes any northern alternative even less satisfactory. For those reasons I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government, and I urge all other noble Lords to do so.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to return to something said by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, at the start of the debate, a long time ago now, which struck me, if I may say to him with respect, as being particularly silly. He suggested to my noble friends on the Front Bench on this side of the House that because the Labour Government had proposed the southern route in 1976 it was absurd for this side of the House not to continue to support it. It struck me as unfair, just because he happens to be a Member of a Government who are well known for pursuing out-of-date and discredited policies, that he should expect others to do the same.

1491
More significantly, much has changed since 1976 which affects the decison on where the route should go. Indeed, much has changed since 1981. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, nor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, seem to recognise that. For example, the balance between areas which are important for conservation and areas which are important for food production have significantly switched in the past few years. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that the joint committee, looking at this issue several years after the inspector considered the evidence, might have come to a different decision solely on those grounds alone. The factors which influence the balance of advantage on where the road does or does not go have changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that the agricultural factor influenced him, but I suggest to him that that has become of less importance in recent years than it was during the period of the public inquiry. Circumstances have changed and it is reasonable for people to change their minds. Therefore, I do not think that the joint committee should be attacked for doing so in the way that it has been attacked by a number of noble Lords in different ways tonight.
I ask one question and make one more serious point, because it is getting late. The noble Earl said that this would not act at a precedent. When the noble Lord, Lord Elton, replies to the debate, will he be able to give two assurances in the light of the fact that this will not be a precedent so far as the Department of Transport is concerned? First, can he assure me that the decision about the route that the North Devon link road is to take is not being deliberately delayed until this particular little local difficulty is out of the way? Secondly, can he assure me that when the route is announced the North Devon link road will not go through any areas of national importance from a conservation point of view; in particular, any sites of special scientific interest? I must tell the Government that there is a widespread belief that this is simply the first of what is to be a series of decisions on road developments which are going to damage either national parks or important areas of wildlife. I suspect that to be the case.
The more serious point to which I want to turn is the view of the Secretary of State for Transport about what the Government would do were the joint committee to come to the decision that it did, against the Government's interests. It seems to me that the Government have got themselves in an impossible position. Whichever way they turn the Secretary of State has clearly been deliberately misleading both Houses of Parliament, and I think that the Government are engaged in an extremely shoddy and miserable manoeuvre. I shall say why if the noble Earl gives me a chance.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that I must come in at this point. I did not interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, when he said something similar. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has not misled either House. I am a little surprised that some noble Lords did not appear to hear what my noble friend the Lord President said. He said that the joint committee reported in April, that the report was discussed in June and that it was decided by the
1492
Government in July to proceed with the special parliamentary procedures. Before other noble Lords take up the Lord Foot argument, let me say that my right honourable friend memorialised the joint chairmen on the specific aspect of the petition relating to policy. He made it perfectly clear then that it was a matter for policy. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, did not pick that up and did not advise the petitioners of the consequences, knowing full well what the Act entailed, cannot now be blamed on my right honourable friend.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for those remarks, and I listened carefully when similar things were said earlier, but they do not seem to me to answer the question. If this was a matter of national policy, the Secretary of State should not have used the procedure that he did. As far as I am aware, he did not say at any stage during the procedures that were the joint committee to come to the decision that it did, the Government would immediately overrule it. If the noble Earl wants to interrupt again to contradict me, I shall gladly give way—but he does not, because the Secretary of State did not say that. He never made the position clear to the petitioners, the joint committee or anybody else. In my view he deliberately misled all those involved from both Houses of Parliament and all the petitioners who went to great trouble and very great expense—for which to my mind the Secretary of State is responsible—in going through a lengthy and, as it turns out, totally meaningless and useless procedure.
The Secretary of State did that because, as the noble Earl has now clearly confirmed, he had no intention right from the beginning of accepting a conclusion from the joint committee unless it was in favour of the southern route. That is what the noble Earl has just told your Lordships' House. That means that the whole procedure—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I shall give way and the noble Earl can correct me if he wants to.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is not what I said to this House. I am afraid that the noble Lord is totally wrong. He should read Hansard to get exactly what I did say.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl said that the Secretary of State took the view when he first tried to restrict the basis on which the petitions were made to the joint committee that a matter of national policy was at stake; in other words, that it was a matter of national policy that the bypass round Okehampton went to the south of the town rather than to the north. The noble Earl has nodded, confirming that view. That means that the Secretary of State intended to introduce this sort of Bill right from the start, to overrule the joint committee were it to come to the conclusion that it did because a matter of national policy was at stake. That indeed is the only basis on which the Government could even presume to try to justify the miserable procedure on which they have embarked.

1493
I think that the joint committee was set up on a false basis if that is the case. Nobody should have been allowed to go through the rigmarole of petitioning, with days and days of investigation, if the Secretary of State had decided, as the noble Earl says he had, that as a matter of national policy the road should go to the south of Okehampton. That means that the whole procedure was a waste of time.
If I may say so to the noble Earl, I think that that is discreditable enough, but the basis of that behaviour is entirely discreditable. What principle of national policy was at stake in deciding that the bypass had to go to the south rather than to the north? Is a four, five, six or even nine-year delay really a matter of national policy? Is a small additional cost—certainly tiny compared to the whole of the Department of Transport budget—a matter of national policy? Is the question of whether farmland or public open space is taken in a local case like this a matter of national policy? Of course none of those is a matter of national policy.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, have made perfectly clear their view that this does not raise matters of national policy. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that the matter should have been decided at a public local inquiry and left there. The Government cannot have it both ways unless they are deliberately trying to trick people and get away with a shoddy manoeuvre. That is what the Bill is; that is what will go through if noble Lords vote in favour of the Government tonight.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with due respect, the noble Lord has misinterpreted what I said and has misled the House, I believe. If he will read what I said in my opening speech about the consideration of the hybrid Bill, about the Motion to annul the orders by Lord Foot and the Motion in the other place, he will see that it was taken by all those involved that it should go to a joint committee, and the petitioners were memorialised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am aware of that. The noble Earl has taken up about half of the eight minutes I have been speaking for, but I am happy to respond. The facts, I believe, are that the Secretary of State for Transport and the Government did not realise that there was a chance of the Select Committee considering a general petition. I am convinced that up to that point they thought that there would be a petition on the narrow issue of public open space. That would go one way or another, but nevertheless the bypass would go to the south of the town. But, as the noble Earl says, it was in their mind all the time, as a matter of national policy, to quote him, that the road should go to the south of Okehampton. What upset the apple cart from the Government's point of view was that the authorities in both Houses allowed a general petition to be made to the joint committee. At that stage if there had been a spark of decency in the Secretary of State for Transport, he would have stood up immediately in Parliament and said, "Right, we must stop this. The Government will overrule the joint committee if they come down in favour of a route to
1494
the north of Okehampton and against the southern route." But that would have looked like what is actually happening now 12 months later—a deliberate use of the Government's majority to override a joint committee of the Houses of Parliament. They did not have the guts to do it at the time; so they are doing it 12 months later. That is why it is a shoddy manoeuvre.
9.21 p.m.
Viscount Falmouth: My Lords, I speak in full support of my noble friend's Bill to confirm the southern route, the Okehampton bypass, for the A.30. I trust that your Lordships will not agree to the amendment if it is pressed, so that the bypass will be built at the earliest possible date. I speak as a Cornishman who lives in Cornwall. I have lived there for a very long time. I am delighted to find that there are in the House at the moment at least four Members who live or have lived in the county. I have therefore an interest in the Bill.
I speak but seldom, but I believe that I would be failing in my duty if I did not say that these notorious traffic jams are a terrible handicap for Cornwall. One has only to read The Times of last Tuesday to see how united local government spokesmen are in favour of the southern route. We have heard that time and again this afternoon. Our county did not take part in the original inquiry. Nor did we give evidence to the joint committee. We thought it wrong to interfere in the affairs of our friends and neighbours in Devon while the committee was set up to consider, I believe, a limited question of open space land. We now know better.
Our county depends on the A.30 and the bypass is urgently required. We are at the end of the road, and that is always a great handicap. When this burden of the Okehampton traffic queues is lifted, a great obstacle for our trade and industry will be removed—for us indeed a compelling reason. I intend to speak briefly. I have four points to make on the effect of these delays in Cornwall. First, there is the effect on lorry traffic. We send out a great deal of food from Cornwall every year to the markets up country. I think that our gross output is something like £220 million of agricultural and horticultural products—no mean figure. It includes half a million boxes of flowers and that sort of thing, and a lot of broccoli—20,000 crates of broccoli a year. A great deal of this travels up the A.30. The majority travels in lorries slowly moving up hills and up and down all those bends around Okehampton.
Then there are the fish lorries, and, by no means least, all the China-clay lorries from our great China-clay pits in the county. I have heard tell—as we say in Cornwall—that the Okehampton delays are equal to a £5 toll on every load. Personally I would have said it was more.
Let me turn for a moment to a very important question for the trade, that of the drivers' hours. That is such an important question in planning road haulage and marketing. When this bypass is built Cornish loads may well be able to reach the markets as far afield as Leeds and Lincoln, and Folkestone and Dover for the Continent, within the limits of drivers' hours instead of wasting those precious hours at or near Okehampton and vice versa.

1495
Do we have to wait another nine years for this? I think that the noble Baroness dealt with the question: why not use the southern route via Plymouth? That is already at a maximum at peak periods. The noble Baroness was horrified at that suggestion. I am told by the road surveyors in Cornwall that over the next three years heavy repairs have to be done to that bridge because the concrete deck has to be repaired and in places replaced.
My second point—which again the noble Baroness raised—is about unemployment in Cornwall. This is above the national average. I think that the figure in October was about 18 per cent. overall. As the noble Baroness said, we are most anxious about tin mining, and also about the future manufacture of air-compressors in Camborne. We have excellent labour in the county and the best way to get more jobs in Cornwall is to improve the communications through Devon. Good communications are the key to encouraging industry to come, as they mean a permanent reduction in costs which no government can take away.
So much publicity has now been given to the Okehampton tailbacks that the mere thought of them will frighten prospective industry away. We want the bypass as soon as possible. Good communications mean good predictability of supply. Firms in Cornwall are particularly vulnerable to unpredictable arrivals of goods. Nothing is more frustrating than men who have to be kept hanging about to off-load. It is terribly frustrating for management and workpeople in manufacturing, agriculture, mining and, above all, the shops.
My fourth and by no means least important point is the tourist trade. At home and abroad—and by "abroad" I mean Europe and beyond—we depend on this in summer. I do not know how many Members of your Lordships' House or how many objectors to the southern route have ever been caught in the Okehampton queues. I have, on average for two hours. The surveyor says that in the peak periods at summer weekends there are 17,000 vehicles going each way through Okehampton. That is a terrifying figure.
I am so glad that the noble Lord on the opposite side of the House mentioned the drivers and the passengers in the queues. What do a family of holidaymakers—grown-ups and young children—remember when they return to their Midland home, having left Cornwall that morning?—the delays, the starting and stopping, the traffic lights at Okehampton, the corners and hills round the little village of Sticklepath, which will all happily be bypassed. This is what they remember, and I cannot blame them if they never want to come again, because there are so many competing brochures in the travel shops. Quite literally, if evil communications corrupt good manners, they certainly corrupt tempers. Good communications make life much easier for everyone.
To a greater or lesser degree we are all conservationists, and the conservationists are seeking to prevent a small slice of Dartmoor being taken from within the northern boundary of the Dartmoor park. Whatever one may say, the Dartmoor National Park comprises 233,000 acres and, as has been said, the northern boundary was, for administrative
1496
convenience, drawn along the line of the A.30. This is not a party issue; it is just a plea for common sense. The proposed southern route is a good one, running along the valley south of the town and close to the railway and quarry. It will have the least effect on the beauty of the landscape. Indeed, how does the present spur (which is already built) from the M.5 at Exeter, running along the northern edge of Dartmoor, spoil the landscape?
This bypass in no way goes through the heart and centre of the national park. It is as though Shylock asked for a hank of Antonio's hair in the Merchant of Venice rather than the pound of flesh, and Portia, his counsel, had no case to make. It would be a friendly gesture to our county if this amendment was not pressed to a Division. However, if it is pressed, I hope that Members from all parts of the House will support the Government. If this Bill is not now passed, how many more years of delay will we have to suffer before a bypass is built?
Quite fortuitously I did not read the advertisement in The Times today, but on the centre page I read the following, and in quoting it perhaps I may apologise to the right reverend Prelate:
"'0 little town of Bethlehem How still we see thee lie,
For on thy by-pass, newly built, The cars pass softly by.
And you can have a by-pass, too, If you apply to us…"
Cornwall realises how important this vote is tonight, and I hope that your Lordships will vote against this amendment and thus support this important Bill.
9.33 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I find myself in a slight difficulty this evening in that at least two of my noble friends feel very strongly about the environment. Other noble Lords who are speaking in favour of these amendments also feel very strongly. It is a pity that, in order to support their cause, they tend to inflate certain matters. A leaflet which talks about a wonderful wooded 700-year old deer park sounds very impressive until you find out that there has not been a deer in that park for at least 100 years.
I read the advertisement in The Times and I was surprised because my trouble is that I am not a conservationist. I live in Finchley in North London and I do not go down to Devon and Cornwall. I am interested in transport matters. Therefore, in the words of this advertisement, I was trying to see:
"where lie truth and the public good".
I have been to exhibitions and I have read the large amount of material which has been sent to us. On that basis, it seemed to me that the southern route was the right one.
Then I heard about the Joint Select Committee. I do not know the parliamentary. rights or wrongs of this but I was surprised to find out that this joint committee did not take evidence from those people on a northern route who would be affected, so how could they judge the southern route and propose a northern route if they did not know what people felt about that northern route? Although it has been said before, I think we must accept that there is the southern route, and possibly a northern route somewhere.

1497
Remarks have been made that the land in the north is not very good and, according to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that in the past few years this land has suddenly decreased in its nutrients. The National Farmers' Union states categorically that the land in the north is good land, valuable land, grazing land, that all the farmers in the north are against the northern route, and that the farmers in the south, on the southern route, are not against the southern route.
The other matter we have to bear in mind—and it has been said a lot of times—is how can we possibly let this situation continue for another 12 or 13 years? I read somewhere that it was claimed that if we opted for the northern route it would not cause an additional delay of more than possibly two or three months. The only way that that would be possible would be if we denied to the people who live on the northern route their democratic right to a public inquiry, and that would be very bad indeed.
I am not going to say much more, except that I should like to read a letter that I have received. Having gone against the conservationists, I thought your Lordships might be interested in this letter. It is a letter from the chairman of the Federation of Hotels and Tourist Associations. It is not a very tactful letter.
"I hope that as SDP spokesman on transport, and in memory of your father"—
I like that, in memory of my father!—
"so widely respected by my generation caught by the 1939–45 war, and fully aware"
and so on—
"that you also will have the courage and foresight of your father and support the A.30 southern route".
I thought hard. He is almost saying that if I do not support the southern route which he does that I am not a very good man. I should love to have struck a blow for my independence, but I am convinced that the southern route is the right route and I shall be voting for that.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, it may be of interest to your Lordships to know that the list of speakers, as it was originally, representated about 1 per cent. of the population of Okehampton. In speaking to this Motion as someone, like a lot of other noble Lords and Members of another place, who has no connection with the West Country, but has been there on holiday as my daughter lives down there, or on business, or has visited the area to see the alternatives—and I hasten to add that I have not—but has read all the literature on both sides that has come through my letter box and has visited the exhibitions, I have tried to come to a rational, unbiased view on this matter. It is rather hard to do, as other noble Lords have said, because it has stirred up the emotions of not only the people from the West Country but also people from the rest of the country as to whether the road should go to the north or south.
There is no doubt that a bypass will create jobs and bring prosperity to the West Country. There is no doubt that it will not only relieve Okehampton but save it from crumbling, and let it breathe and become a charming country town where people can carry on
1498
their business life without all the noise and pollution in the air.
I have examined the alternatives. On the one hand, if the road goes to the north, it will go through open spaces at Abbeyford Woods, and it will go through good farming land. I shall not go into that because so much has been said about it already. It will close Aggetts quarry. It will cost more in time and money and will run across the grain of the land above the town leaving a scar with a viaduct. If, on the other hand, it goes to the south, it will go through the tip of the national park—I say "tip"—also leaving a scar. It will go through a mediaeval deer park and what is commonly known as Bluebell Wood and can be completed in three years.
Those briefly are the cases. I have given careful consideration to the issues. If the road goes to the north, it will leave a scar, but the northern route will be seen for miles around with the 90-foot viaduct sticking up like a sore thumb. But the southern route will be hidden in the natural contours of the land Jobs will be lost in the quarry and possibly farming jobs if it goes to the north, but I can see no job losses to the south. As for Bluebell Wood, I am told you either have to be a pygmy or someone on stilts to go through it. The deer park has not had deer in it for over a hundred years or so and, what is more, much of the deer park is useless because it consists of 533 acres out of a total of 1,506 acres made up of railway, golf course, army camp and quarry. If the road goes to the south with additional land coming in, the Moor will be bigger.
I am concerned also about the time factor. I do not think a northern route could be built in an extra five, six or nine years. So many numbers of years have been mentioned. First, the farmers will fight with all they have until the last drop of blood has left them. Secondly, there are outsiders who could object and cause delays. One only has to look at what happened to the M.40 extension where one objector's court actions have caused costly delays, and that person does not even live within 30 miles of the proposed extension. We have seen this from time to time in many cases. This was in the Daily Telegraph on 21 st November.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, as I said, Aggetts quarry is nearly worked out in any case. The 10 people who work there have been offered alternative employment at Meldon quarry. I thought that was a point worth restating.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I shall just reiterate my point about the objections from outsiders who live miles away. I heard yesterday from a Member of Parliament who has letters from his constituents in Birmingham who have been reading about the Okehampton bypass and they have asked him to vote against it. Those people say they have never been down there. This is happening on the M.40 and it will be happening with the Okehampton bypass. As I was saying, we have seen this time and time again in other places.
It is a fact that all the local elected councils and parishes in varying degree are in favour of the southern route as well as the majority of the local people, local Members of another place, the NFU, the CLA, some

1499
of the major trade unions as well as the independent landscape authority. They are all in favour.
In the quiet of my home I have pondered and weighed up the balance. I consider that there is no reasonable alternative, in this instance, but that the minority should now bow to the wishes of the majority in this case and that we should pass this order tonight and save Okehampton from total destruction. Let the West Country benefit from the jobs and industry that will ensue now and not in years to come, because then it will be too late.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, I am another West Country Peer supporting the southern route. In doing so, I propose to speak, and very briefly, to the substance rather than the procedures of this matter.
First, in relation to the environment, we have all read, heard and seen much about the environment. There is much evidence on both sides. I have reached the conclusion that there is little to choose. Any major road is a liability to the environment. However, it has to be accepted, as I think it is agreed by Members from all parts in the House, that a bypass is essential and has been essential for many years past.
On the issue of farming land, I believe the balance clearly falls to the southern route. There is more damage to farming the land. I do not think this is the most important point but nevertheless farming is the industry of Devon and cannot be ignored. In relation to cost, it is said that the northern route will cost £5 million more at 1976 prices. Presumably, it will be materially more now. Again, that is not the most important point, but millions do count in this world.
Delay is obviously the most vital factor. This is something on the jugular vein of the West Country. It not only affects Cornwall—and I listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, with interest—but I am a Dorset man, living on the border and we are affected and—goodness knows!—Devon is too. The delay is terrible. It is terrible to contemplate six additional years. This is the Government's estimate, and today I have heard no convincing arguments to suggest that it would be less: more likely more. This is the vital factor. We cannot have 12 mile queues of unfortunate people wishing to see the environment but merely seeing other motorcars for miles and miles.
Then, in relation to procedure, I briefly say that, while following the legal arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the one which convinces me is that Parliament has the power to decide and it is our decision today which counts.
On the issue of the national park, we have been given the most complete assurances by the Government that there is no precedent here. It is a slither (if I may use that word) of the 230,000 acres to which the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, referred. There is no precedent. The governing factor is that the reasons should be compelling—and they are compelling—and that there should be no reasonable alternative. Certainly in my opinion there is no reasonable alternative. Indeed, it would be most unreasonable if your Lordships did not pass the Bill and reject the amendment.
9.48 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as each hour has passed, I have crossed out more and more of what I planned to say. However, I think I must say the little which is left. There is no doubt of the need for a bypass. We have all agreed on that, and I am surprised that noble Lords have felt it necessary to go on saying so. There is no argument: Okehampton must have its bypass. I do not intend to go over again all the arguments between north and south. I have just a few particular points that I want to make.
First of all, I thought it might be worthwhile to look at a summary of the representations which I have received since the time of the public inquiry. The Select Committee has advised the Government, as we have heard at great length tonight, against the southern route. The Countryside Commission, which is the Government's own adviser, has consistently opposed the southern route. All 12 or so leading national conservation bodies are against the southern route. None of these has any commercial interest, and can therefore be assumed to be offering objective advice. We have also had many letters from individuals in Okehampton, who appear to set preservation of the southern route above that of their own immediate comfort, though they all want the bypass in the end. When we come to those who support the Bill—and I am not complaining about this—we find that they all have a particular interest. The AA and the RAC are anxious to ease the lot of the motorists; and so they should; that is their job. The Freight Transport Association, of course, are concerned about difficulties for lorry drivers in Okehampton. The A.30 Action Group, from which I am sure many noble Lords will have heard, represent a large number of commercial, industrial and service interests in Devon and Cornwall. All these seek improved access to strengthen the economy of the region which I fully support in an area of high unemployment.
But all these organisations and interests are more concerned about the timing of the bypass than about where it goes. As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said earlier, some of them really do not care a button where it goes so long as they get it fairly quickly. The single exception in this category is the National Farmers' Union; and I shall return to them in a moment. Those who profit from the tourist industry might pause to reflect that it is the beauties of their counties that the tourists come to see and that their livelihoods depend upon this; and that, if in the course of getting the tourists in, they destroy the very thing that the tourists want to see, then their livelihoods may well be damaged. I offer that to the service industries before they come out in full support of the southern route.
Now to the National Farmers' Union which is a special case. They quite properly put the case for avoiding loss of agricultural land. But it can be argued that this is a less telling point now than it might have been a few years ago since we are now trying to cope with overproduction in the agricultural industry. They might find possible compensation attractive against loss of profits for crops which have a diminishing value. It can also be said that agricultural land is a loss to identifiable individuals who can be compensated. But the loss of part of a national park is a loss to the whole community. Although I support my noble

1501
friend's amendment which offers compensation to the Dartmoor National Park authority if such a course is possible—and I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether this is so—this should not be seen in any way as a recompense for the damage done to the concept of national parks because for that there can be no compensation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, told us so graphically, the single real argument in favour of the southern route now is the likely delay in pursuing an alternative. I think we are all agreed on that.There has been no positive support for the southern route that left aside this need for speed; and we all agree that this is so. It is quite deplorable, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said earlier, that in spite of the controversy surrounding this project the Department of Transport has apparently been allowed to concentrate solely on the southern route. There have been some rather bitter exchanges of views across the Chamber about how this might or might not be. Whatever the reason, I think it is deplorable because there has been controversy right from the beginning. There has been a national parks policy which the Government should have known would lead to this controversy. It seems to me that there should have been an intelligent appraisal of some of the alternatives.
We have this argument about how much the completion date will be delayed. Mr. Parker, for the Countryside Commission, gives us 1990 as the finishing date for a possible alternative northern route. The Secretary of State, Mr. Ridley, gives us 1994. His Minister of State gives us 1998. I cannot remember exactly the date that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave us but I think it was something around 1994.
We are told in another context that we can have a Channel tunnel in four years. Why should it take nine years to deal with something like four or five miles of perfectly ordinary dual carriageway if we can have a channel tunnel in four or five years?
Has the Secretary of State not felt it sensible in all these years of anxiety to instruct his department to give just some consideration to the alternatives? It seems that the Government have blinkered themselves to all outside comment against the southern route and are determined to force the Bill through by relying on their large Whipped majority and on the constitutional sensitivity of your Lordships' House.
For me the overwhelming argument is the need to protect the national park. I simply do not accept that if we allow this violation to take place it will not be seen as a precedent. I do not question the integrity of the present Secretary of State or of the Ministers on the Bench opposite; but Ministers change, as we have said in other debates on other subjects, and the words in Hansard are not binding on any future Ministers. The next time a park is in an inconvenient place from the point of view of the Department of Transport, we may see yet another encroachment. The principle must be protected. There has already been too much nibbling away at the amenities of Dartmoor. Now is the time to say "enough", and if the only way to do that is to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, then, my Lords, I shall support it.
9.56 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, there is a certain inevitability about my appearance in your Lordships' House this evening. Of 39 speakers on the list, only three have historical, long-term connections with Devonshire: the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and I myself. We are all three Cross-Benchers, detached from party struggles, and all in favour of the Bill and against the amendment. I hope that those of you who are not historically connected with Devonshire will pay serious attention to what we have to say. The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, on the eco-balance was of outstanding distinction. The noble Lord. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has given long, distinguished and continuous service to public affairs in Devonshire, and everything he says also should be taken very seriously.
I come to my own involvement. My family settled in Devon in the early 12th century and flourished there till we backed the wrong side in the Civil War. Proscribed, fined as active malignants—being Cavaliers in a Roundhead county—we lost our estates and set out again on our travels: a thing which the late King Charles II said he would never do. Those travels land me here this evening. Although I am exterritorial, I have never lost interest in what 1 still regard as my own county. I was a regular contributor to the little quarterly magazine concerned with Devon county history—Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries, it was called. And, whether by virtue of their quantity or their quality I know not, I was invited a quarter of a century ago to become president of the Devonshire Association. I am now of course a past president—and nothing is so past as that.
But I have not come to the end of my recital. I am the ex-tenant of a weekend cottage at Belston, within walking distance of Okehampton. From my garden I could wander straight up to the top of Belston Tor for a picnic, or I could walk into Okehampton for my shopping. I know the district; I know its roads; I know its hopeless traffic congestion; I know its needs; I know its lobbyists—and I know those whose opinions I respect and those I do not. Those whose opinions I respect are unanimously in favour of the Bill and against the amendment.
Okehampton, my Lords, requires better treatment than the shabby one it has got out of parliamentary procedures so far. Why should they be the victims of the busy little butter-fingers of a joint committee whose members deserted their terms of reference, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford? May I remind your Lordships that law is made by the Queen in Parliament, not by joint committees. If the robustitude of the Commons chooses to give the joint committee a rap over the knuckles, there is no reason that your Lordships should not do the same. In that case, the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, collapse into a vacuum.
I resume the history of my involvement in Devon affairs. I was a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on the Dartmoor Commons Bill. 1 was also for 20 years a committee member of the RAC who, together with the AA and the Scottish RAC, put on that very interesting exhibition in the Institute of Chartered Surveyors last week. I am, like my noble

1503
friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, a back number in many ways—ex-this, ex-that. I could even claim to say in the context of this Bill: you name it, I am exit—spelt, if you please, with a hypen to discriminate my status from exit spelt without a hyphen: an irrelevancy endemic to my age group.
Let me say something, please, of the eco-balance. If Dartmoor were not covered by sheep, it would be covered with impenetrable scrub which you would not be able to walk across. Landscape is invariably man-made. What man has made, man can unmake and remake. Nothing is forever. The ways of the Almighty are inscrutable and we cannot penetrate them. They include an incomprehensible preoccupation with beetles. There are more species of beetles in the Coleoptera than species belonging to any other genus on the planet.
Motorways and their aerodynamics effect a widespread destruction of beetles crossing the motorways and sweep them aside on to the verges, where they provide a rich diet for hedgehogs. So you have a rich new eco-fauna in the verges: kestrels hovering above them and hedgehogs pursuing their lawful occasion within them. Why quarrel with this interesting state of affairs? "The old order changeth giving place to new and God fulfils himself in many ways lest one good custom should corrupt the world." Nothing is forever. One eco-balance transforms itself into another, and why not?
Do not think of a motorway as a blemish. It gives the motorist a view second to none of the beauties of the countryside. In the railway age, this enchantment was a monopoly enjoyed by the National Union of Railwaymen driving railway trains. Now it belongs to every motorist. The day after tomorrow, I shall be motoring to Gloucestershire on the M.4. When I have passed Exit 12, the last of the exits leading to Reading, the whole lovely countryside in all its rolling beauty will open out and my heart will lighten as I enjoy it. It is a matter of landscaping and fitting the motorway to the landscape. I have driven across continental United States and know what beauty landscaping can reveal. I have driven over the motorways of Europe with the same result.
I now come to the essential matter. We must learn to take decisions and stick to them on the basis that the better is the enemy of the good. When I was chairman of the Operational Research Society I used to tease my colleagues on these terms: "There isn't one of you that can't write a learned paper on the mathematics of decision-taking, and there isn't one of you that can take a decision and stick to it between meetings."
I remember a tale of the first Earl Attlee when he was Prime Minister. A colleague sent him a paper with a note: "I think this may be an interesting contribution to debate in Cabinet" (on whatever it was.) Earl Attlee minuted back: "Cabinet does not debate. It decides and has." My Lords, that is what we have to learn to do.
We have had the report of a public inquiry. We should stop frigging about and implement it. For my own part, I shall vote for the Bill but against the first of the two amendments. For a quite different reason I shall vote against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, because I think it calls for general
1504
legislation and should not be incorporated in a particular Bill for a particular purpose. I sympathise with its intent but I believe that this is the wrong occasion. My Lords, I shall vote for the Bill and against both amendments.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I can offer only a few words, as a Member of the Joint Select Committee, on the debate as it has gone so far. There cannot really be very much new to be said now. I am sorry to have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that, enormously as I admire the noble Earl's fluency of speech in debate and expertise upon matters of science, he and I have a terrible habit of getting into cross purposes on every possible occasion. I was one of the three Members of this House who, together with three Members of the other House, were asked to serve upon the Select Committee. The noble Earl has accused us of busying our butter fingers with something that he thinks we ought to have had nothing to do with, and he thinks that we ought to be rapped over the knuckles.
If Parliament has laid down a procedure which leads inescapably to a Select Committee of both Houses, and if people are going to be asked to serve and they fear that, having done their best and spent 15 days or more for nothing considering this difficult question when they have other things to do, in the subsequent debate they are going to be knocked about like that, I say to the noble Earl that there will be great difficulty in getting people to serve on Select Committees. In that case we had better have a new parliamentary procedure which eliminates the need for Select Committees. The six of us did the best that we could with the matters that were placed before us.
There is not much new that can be said in this debate, but I have not so far heard any noble Lord mention that the gradient on the southern route is going to be 7 per cent., which I understand is close to the borderline of steepness of gradient which is permissible for a road of this character. If you imagine a heavy, laden large goods vehicle grinding up a 7 per cent. gradient, it is not going to afford much peace and quiet to the people in the immediate neighbourhood.
So much has been said about precedents that I hesitate to say another word about it. The fact is that both Ministers in the other place said that they were not setting a precedent. So did the noble Earl, and for good measure he said he was giving a categoric assurance, as if that made it better. I do not want to get into a semantic argument with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, about what is and what is not a precedent, but I would only say this. Let us suppose that in 20 years' time Parliament wants to do something like this to another national park; it wants to nibble away at the fringe. I suppose that a great many of us will not be here, but I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will be.
The Earl of Caithness: So do I, my Lords.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, if somebody in that debate dares to say that 20 years ago Parliament did such a thing in respect of Dartmoor National Park and so perhaps it can be done again, will the noble Earl stand up and say, "How dare you say that? I gave a

1505
categorical assurance 20 years ago that nothing like this would occur."? That would be Alice in Wonderland. It is never safe for Parliament to say that we are not setting a precedent. It is not for us to do so. It is for those who come afterwards to decide whether or not what we did was a precedent.
Learned counsel for the department, arguing before the Select Committee, stated that Circular 4/76 was crucial to his arguments. He then had to go on to try to argue that the northern route which had been on the county development plan since 1962 was not a reasonable alternative to going through the national park. It seemed to me that he did not relish that task. He spent a great deal of his time simply making a strict comparison between a northern route and a southern route. But if one does that, of course one gives no special protection to the national park at all.
Therefore, when the committee's turn to question the witnesses came, we started by telling them, "For heaven's sake forget about the southern route just for a moment. Try to think about the northern route on its own. Imagine that Okehampton is a coastal town and that Dartmoor is the sea. The only place that a bypass could go would be to the north of Okehampton. You, with your experience of bypass routes all over England, should compare the northern route proposed with other bypass routes in other parts of England and give the committee your opinion as to the reasonableness or otherwise of a northern bypass route". If one regarded the matter in that light, there was a fund of evidence that there was nothing at all unreasonable about taking the route round to the north of Okehampton.
I was disappointed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. At Question Time not very long ago he told your Lordships that we must not nibble away at the Green Belt. I hoped that that splendid proposition was going to be advanced today in favour of the national parks, but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, let me down very sadly.
Finally, let me say that I do not understand the argument that the Okehampton bypass, wherever it goes, will solve the road problem of the people of Cornwall. It was the honourable Member for Truro who I first heard say that the road from Okehampton to Launceston is the longest lane in Britain. The honourable Member for Truro should know what he is talking about in that connection. It seems to me that if one feeds a dual carriageway into the longest lane in Britain, that may be fine for the people of Okehampton, but all one is doing is pushing the snarl-up to the west, into the longest lane. So if the people of Cornwall have been led to believe that the Okehampton bypass will be their salvation, they have been misdirected and let down.
My last word is that it was very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, speaking from whatever pedestal he supposed he was speaking from, to look down on distinguished Members of this House, such as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt, and tell them that he was dealing with them gently. I am sure they will hurry home and put that in their diaries: "I was dealt with gently by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford". If the noble Lord, Lord
1506
Sandford, had dealt a little less gently with the Department of Transport, he might have done more good. I should have thought that, after chairing a committee which had come out with those famous words,
"strongly for the protection of the national park",
and those words had been incorporated almost verbatim into a circular stating Government policy and, after all that, when the chips were down and a practical instance arose the Government flew in the face of their statement of public policy by agreeing to a road through the national park, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would have been the first to say to the Government, "How can you argue that the route to the north that was on the development plan ever since 1962 is not a reasonable alternative to going through a national park?" I was very disappointed with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
I do not think I can help your Lordships any further. It is terribly important to get this bypass in the right place and I think that our children and grandchildren will thank us for putting it in the right place; and I believe that the right place is to the north.
10.17 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, when any road is to be built of whatever length or breadth, by its very nature it is inevitably going to cause deep resentment, very often fearsome anger, sometimes great sadness and unfailingly severe disruption not only to those who find themselves alongside it but also to those who live nearby. A road is an immensely unattractive object with yard after yard of grey tarmac layed by man across God's country. But in accepting that we have to have them, I decided the day before yesterday to see for myself just why so much controversy has raged for so long over the road scheduled to bypass the town of Okehampton to the south.
It would be totally insensitive and utterly unrealistic to pretend that this road, if it were to pass to the south of Okehampton, would not pass through a perfectly beautiful piece of England: England at its best, with that superb and dramatic mixture of a river flowing through a thickly wooded valley, one side of which is bordered by those characteristic small and undulating Devonian fields while the other side climbs steeply up past wooded slopes up onto a great shoulder of open moorland where lie the northern foothills of Dartmoor.
In the middle of the valley below nestles Okehampton which in summer, although surrounded by beauty on all sides, does itself become a hideous monument to the ghastlyness of late 20th century traffic and its attendant chaos, while its inhabitants go about their daily business in despair and misery as year after year passes with no sign of relief in sight; not to mention those wretched holiday-makers, lorry drivers and the inhabitants of Devon and Cornwall inching their way through the town and along the eastern and western approaches to the town. If you get caught in the Okehampton net the hell of it does not fade easily from the memory. Speedy relief for Okehampton is therefore essential if it is ever again to breathe in the sweet air of summer.

1507
Having therefore examined with care, both on maps and on the ground, the case for the southern route against that of the northern route, even as a layman—which I most certainly am when it comes to building roads—even I, as a devout defender of conservation, quickly perceived that the choice must lie with the route that passes to the south.
To be able to build a road just over five miles in length through low grade farmland, a road for the most part curling around a great shoulder of headland, through making maximum use of the existing lie of the ground, by cutting into the hillside and staggering the level of the carriageways, through planting a mixture of fast-growing trees and trees indigenous to the area, through upsetting a minimal number of homes—in fact, some 15 in all, which is small compared to the number being upset in the town at the moment—seems almost to good to be true. But true it is.
When one realises, furthermore, that having laid such a road it would from Dartmoor be virtually invisible, and that in some seven years' time, when the trees have grown, very nearly the whole route would be invisible from nearly every angle—when one realises that and at the same time takes into account the fact that if a road to the north were selected it would in all probability not even be built by the time the trees had grown up on the southern route, then at that point does the argument for the route to the south really become persuasive; nay, even compelling. Moreover, this southern route for much of its length would flirt very closely with the single track of railway line which takes stone from Meldon Quarry to Crediton. Very little of this line can be seen because it was a designer's paradise to lay track along a deep cutting against the side of a hill. So too today it is a road planner's paradise.
Those who love the moor make much of the so-called desecration of the national park if a road were to pass through it. However, I cannot agree that 0·06 per cent. of the whole of Dartmoor, which is the amount of land to be taken, can in any sense justify that argument. I think that it is important to be fully aware that there are already two huge areas of desecration just above where this southern route is to pass—first, the army camp with 54 acres and, secondly, the Meldon Quarry with 148 acres. For those of your Lordships who have not seen it, I can assure you that this quarry is a deep and offensive scar on the face of the moor while the machinery that works it is for ever darkly silhouetted against the sky behind.
While any route to the north would not pass through quite such beautiful country it would nonetheless go through many more smallholdings of better-grade land. It would be a mile longer; it is estimated that it would cost £5 million more to build; and it is unlikely that it would take much less than nine years to complete. But equally important, as this is the type of terrain across which the northern route would have to pass, because of the undulating type of ground that characterises Devon and Cornwall, much of this route would be immensely exposed. It would be impossible for it to be otherwise. It would be a horrendous scar across a very beautiful part of Devon and it would be visible from miles around and particularly from Dartmoor.
1508
It will be a sad and bad day for those who live in Devon and Cornwall if this, in my opinion, justifiable preference for the southern route is overturned. Indeed, if that were to happen my advice to any such noble anti-southerners here tonight would be to keep their heads well down and their car doors and windows locked for the next nine years when passing through the town of Okehampton. The northern route sticks out like a sore thumb, while the southern route is like one of those lines tucked away deep in the folds of the palm of one's hand, following the natural contours from east to west.
I submit that in the choice of one route or another the southern route is the undoubted one which possesses the qualities of sensitive planning together with the promise of speedy relief—qualities after which those who live in and around Okehampton have for many years now so desperately hankered.
10.23 p.m.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, in view of your Lordships' patient suffering over the past six hours or so I shall try to be brief. Personally I happen to believe that the southern route would be environmentally less damaging than the northern route, and I have a lurking suspicion that had the inspector at the public inquiry been a qualified planner or had he sat with qualified planning assessors, he might just possibly at least have come to the conclusion that the northern route offered a reasonable alternative.
However, the arguments for and against the northern and southern routes have been put at such length that I do not want to go into that. I support my noble friend Lord Molson on the grounds that if we do not now come to grips with the way in which this shambles has been created, who has been responsible for it and how it has come about, and recognise the dangers for the future in what has been done, we deserve to have this sort of thing happen to us again and again, as it will.
Much has been made of the question of time and delay. The delay is entirely the fault of the Department of Transport. A northern route was on the Devon county plan from 1964 for nearly a decade. It was not until 1971 that the Department of Transport began to have discussions with the local authorities about a southern route. That was seven years after the northern route first went into the county plan. I submit that any official in the Department of Transport who did not warn his Minister that to plan a route through a national park in contravention of the accepted policy in Circular 4 of 1976 is not fit to advise a Minister. It was perfectly obvious that this would produce an enormous upsurge of indignation from all conservation bodies who were quite rightly determined as to the policy that the national parks should be inviolate, or as near inviolate as possible, and ought to be preserved. And this was a flagrant departure from it.
Really, I have no patience at all with those ranging from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to others, who have suggested that this is not very important because the route only passes through the fringes of the national park. Apart from the fact that

1509
this is reminiscent of the excuse of the housemaid who had a baby, the fact of the matter is that, by definition, Circular 4/76 can apply only to the fringes of national parks. If a town lies wholly within a national park, it is perfectly obvious that the bypass must go through the national park. This circular was designed to protect the fringes of national parks from piecemeal encroachment. And it has been breached.
I submit that delay having been caused by the procrastination and incompetence of the Department of Transport, they have now compounded this in two ways. It is no reflection on my noble friend Lord Caithness or on his right honourable friend when I say that it is quite impossible to take seriously his assurance that this will not be used as a precedent and that it will never happen again. As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, not only can he not commit another government, he cannot even commit a future Secretary of State. Knowing the way of the Department of Transport and of civil servants generally, if there is a precedent, you can bet your boots that when another case of this kind comes up, they will grab it.
It has, of course, breached an established policy. That is a very serious matter. But, in my view, the behaviour of the Department of Transport has done something worse. Two previous Ministers have given assurances about the procedure of going before a Joint Select Committee of both Houses with a petition from objectors. Both of them said clearly that the Minister ought to tell the objectors if he had any intention of overturning a decision adverse to him in the Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, put with great force the question as to when the decision was made. I find it difficult to believe that it was a last minute change of heart on the part of the Secretary of State
The point is that the Select Committee procedure, which has been an invaluable buttress for the rights of citizens whose landscape and environment were affected, has now been very seriously damaged. If it is now known that the Secretary of State can and well may overturn any decision of a Joint Select Committee that he does not like, what body of petitioners will scrape together and risk £50,000 to go through that procedure in future? What it means is that this procedure will be gravely damaged and this will mean the removal of a very important right for the citizens of this country. What has happened is that both Circular 4/76—the policy of successive governments—has been seriously endangered and in my view rendered nugatory, and the Select Committee procedure has been so seriously damaged that I believe fewer and fewer people will be willing to take advantage of it in future. Both these are very serious losses and they are, I submit, of very considerable political importance and should be of importance to every Member of your Lordships' House.
In view of what has happened I have some sympathy with those who say that our entire procedure for dealing with problems of this kind, possibly involving a change in the substantive Act, should now be considered seriously. If we are going to get into this sort of shambles over and over again—and we have seen it with motorway inquiries as well—we ought to do something about it. If this brings us to the point of
1510
deciding to do something to clear up the mess which the Department of Transport has made of this case, it may not all have been in vain.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Saint Levan: My Lords, as I come from southwest Cornwall—far west—I have further to go home tonight than any of your Lordships, so I shall be very short indeed. I should first of all like to say that Dartmoor National Park is a very important part of the heritage of the south-west. It is typical West Country scenery, and has been rightly called the wild heart of the West Country. I have to say that, when driving from London to Penzance, looking towards the national park is, I think, one of the most beautiful scenes that one sees after leaving the M.5 from Exeter. I think we have nothing to compare with it in Cornwall, even on Bodmin Moor and even with the romance of Jamaica Inn.
The fact is that the proposed southern route passes through a national park and is a cause of deep concern. However, I should have thought, having heard all the arguments, that as a matter of judgment and balance, certainly from the point of view of people living in West Cornwall, there is a compelling need for a bypass. It would not be reasonable for a delay of 13, nine or even three years. In West Cornwall we arc now faced with a bypass being built at Long Rock which will ruin, in my view, the approach to the beautiful Mounts Bay. There has been an inquiry about a distributor road to Penzance, and there are proposals for further road-widening in the Indian Queen area of the A.30, so that the A.30 in Cornwall would be very much improved.
In Cornwall, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, conservation groups have a very heavy responsibility, because the county depends so much on the tourist industry. I happen to live in a National Trust property which is visited by many people—in fact, it is one of the most visited places in the country. It would not be in my personal interest for this bypass to be built so that my property is over-visited. But the tourist trade is altering very quickly; that is why the bypass is needed so quickly.
Fewer visitors now book well in advance of their holidays. They react very quickly to road traffic information. A good satellite television weather forecast produces a sudden surge of visitors, as it did in the first week of November this year. Many visitors complain to me about the long traffic queues. After all, they drive 200 miles to Exeter and after that there is a further two or three hours' driving to get to West Cornwall. The tourist trade is not an easy trade. I know of many recent bankruptcies of small businesses which depend on the tourist trade. It is a very risky business for people with very limited capital. But it happens to be a trade which employs more people for less capital, and its importance to Cornwall cannot be exaggerated.
Finally, I should like to mention two very important new reasons why there is a compelling need for the bypass to be built in the next three years. Perhaps more than any other county West Cornwall depends on the transport of fresh perishable goods to the markets in London and the Midlands. There is now considerable anxiety about the competition of Spain coming into

1511
the Common Market on 1st January. We have to compete with what might be called the Spanish Armada.
Another good reason is that arts and crafts in Cornwall are now attracting many more people, and if they do not give people a job they give them an occupation. It is important for them that their goods should be sold in the London stores or in the stores of the big cities of England cheaply and quickly, because this great enterprise is starting now in West Cornwall. In three years' time, in 1988, Cornwall County Council hope to sponsor an exhibition and festival in London to promote Cornwall in London. This will be the first time that an English county has done such a thing. For these reasons I ask your Lordships to support the Bill.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, I hope that all members of your Lordships' House who intend to vote against the Bill put forward by the Government have travelled along the proposed southern route. This Bill provides the best answer to an impossible question: how to organise a bypass round Okehampton. I respect the sincerity of all those who think or, as it seems to them, know that the southern route is wrong. In particular, I pay the greatest possible attention to the procedural and constitutional, or quasi-constitutional, points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. These must be examined so that the ghastly mess which we are discussing tonight never happens again.
I have come from Brussels for this debate and I am glad that I do not have to go back to Devon tonight. I work in Devon; it is my constituency in the European Parliament; I know it well and often have to travel in, through and near Okehampton. There is no doubt in my mind that the people of Devon and Cornwall, if they have a view, are in favour of this Bill and the southern route.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in his elegant and one might almost say sinuous speech, gave some figures which were useful but not wholly illuminating. He did not mention that 100 per cent. of the West Devon councillors are in favour of the southern route, and I think that that fact should go on record.
Any road creates environmental problems. Those of us who know Okehampton, who have been to this edge of the moor, who have seen the proposed southern route, who have noticed the difference between the over-hanging lip of the moor and the exposed flank that would be traversed by the northern route, can easily understand how it is the best answer. Those of us who have not may have doubts.
However, I would suggest to your Lordships that, before voting for the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Molson or Lord Underhill, you should think for one minute—and this is my concluding point—of the tourists, the residents and the inhabitants of the far south-west. They are looking to this House for justice and for a reasonably speedy bypass. I accept that what we are deciding tonight has long-term importance for national parks in general and for Dartmoor in particular. However, the immediate issue is the Okehampton bypass itself and the role that that bypass can play in
1512
helping to vitalise and revitalise parts of our economy in the far south-west which are in difficulty if not in danger.
I would ask noble Lords to remember their past holidays in Devon and Cornwall and, thinking of the people who live and work there all the time rather than they who come and go as visitors, to examine whether there is a real case for voting against this Bill. I support the Government.
10.40 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, do not be too alarmed at the spectacle of somebody speaking in the gap in the speakers' list. I only do so because my noble friend Lord Winstanley is indisposed and will not be speaking at all. Moreover, the point that I wanted to make to the House has already been very able put, chiefly by my noble friend Lord Winchilsea, and it was also touched on in the cogent letter from which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, quoted from the long-distance lorry driver.
The southern route is the wrong route. It will not totally bypass Okehampton. But I am not going into the reasons again because of the time on the clock. I would only say that the department is committing an act of blind folly in choosing this route and that it is likely, if the southern route is completed, as I fear it will be, that within a decade or so the people of Okehampton will be demanding and needing another bypass around the north. For that reason if there is any noble Lord in the House who has not made up his mind how to vote, and if he feels grateful to me for making the shortest speech in the debate, I hope he will show his gratitude by voting for the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molson.
10.42 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, we have had a long debate but an interesting one, characterised by strong and indeed passionate feelings, and by the number of noble Lords who have personal and expert knowledge of the south-west. As at least a part-time resident of Cornwall I have spent many hours in traffic jams between Whitton Down and Okehampton, and I am well aware of the desperate state of the Cornish economy and the numbers of the unemployed. No one doubts that a bypass for Okehampton is absolutely essential, or that its construction must be given high priority. But what this debate is about is the size and the nature of the price to be paid for the needed action. It is an argument of principle versus expediency, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said some five hours ago.
The Government are pressing for the southern route because it would be the quickest and the cheapest to construct, and this consideration must override all others. Some of the Government's arguments are surely specious. They are using the argument of speed, speed, speed to crush all others. But this is not a factor to which they have given all that much attention in the past.
True, they were not responsible for the unfortunate illness of the inspector who held up the project for three years, but between the inspector's report and the announcement of the Government's decision, between that decision and the setting up of the joint committee,

1513
and between the report of the committee and the announcement that its advice was to be disregarded, the Government hardly acted with that alacrity that they now demand of others. Whatever may be the true figure for the extra time it would take to construct the bypass on a route that would spare the national park, the use of the pretext of speed comes ill from those whose own conduct has until now been anything but speedy, or indeed straightforward.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, has analysed the actual procedures of the Government so acutely and so damagingly, in my view, and at the same time of course so delightfully, that I need say no more on that score, but I must say how much I enjoyed and sympathised with what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, had to say about the special procedure Act. I hope very much that after this disastrous series of events over the last 20 years, and the waste of millions of pounds in relation to this bypass, the Act at least will be looked at, amended, or possibly repealed.
I must also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, on his very powerful and convincing speech. I think the situation as it is now, whoever is to blame—and perhaps a lot of people are to blame—should be looked at by Parliament, and probably the whole planning procedures, inquiry procedures, and much else should be looked at as well as our present Acts of Parliament.
Then there is the argument that the proposed route would affect only the fringe of the national park, and that the boundaries of the park were carelessly drawn anyway. Much play has been made of the fact that the boundary of the park is a parish boundary and so is a purely arbitrary or political line and nothing to do with landscape. This, to my mind, is a foolish argument, for parish boundaries, more often than not, follow and reflect natural features. The fringes of moorland, moreover, as has been pointed out, are often the most beautiful and most ecologically interesting parts of a moor. Certainly the view across the Okement Valley where the southern road would run to the heights beyond is one of the most beautiful in Dartmoor.
Have we not reached the limit of speciousness when the Ministers claim in both Houses that the route through the national park is less damaging environmentally than any other route would be?
What really worries us on this side of the House is something larger than the problem of Okehampton. The Government's actions here seem to us just another indication of their lack of seriousness when facing environmental issues and their readiness to sacrifice long-term principle for short-term expediency and to bow to the pressures of sectional interest rather than the national interest. We suspected this when the wildlife Bill was going through the House and we were proved right when the three-month loophole was exploited. That was put right when the amendment of my right honourable friend Dr. David Clark was passed last Session, but again the Government dragged their feet on other clauses in his proposed Bill which would have further safeguarded the. environment.
Again last week, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked a Question on limestone quarrying in the
1514
Yorkshire Dales the noble Lord the Minister made a lot of excuses for inaction, but he did not really seem to be at all worried that the park was being violated by a company that was in clear and deliberate breach of its agreements. If the Government had been truly concerned about the environment, surely some action could and would have been taken. One suspects that the leak of confidential Cabinet documents that appeared in the Sunday Times in November 1979 about the Government's medium- and long-term plans, which included as an item the words,
"reduce over-sensitivity to environmental considerations",
was probably a true side of the Government's attitude and intentions.
The Labour Party is proud of its record in setting up the national parks and we would wish to protect them. I regret myself that it was a Labour Government who suggested the southern route in 1976, but I hope that was an aberration that will not be repeated. It was a fact that the hoped-for route at that time was to have gone along the railway line when we thought the railway would be shut. I should also repeat what my noble friend Lord Underhill said—that the public inquiry had not taken place in 1976. Our amendment is an attempt, as my noble friends Lord Underhill and Lady White have said, to give help to national parks when they are under threat. It seems only fair that if there is violation, there should be recompense. There is no intention of suggesting that the parks authorities can be bought off.
My noble friend Lord Underhill has told the House what we consider we should do on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in view of the nature of the Bill before us and the conventions of the House. Very reluctantly I confess that the Front Bench will not vote, but there is a free vote for our Back-Benchers. I suspect that there is no free vote on the other side of the House. But I should remind all noble Lords that the argument tonight is one of principle and that principle is the integrity of our national parks.
10.49 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I start by telling the noble Baroness, Lady David, that her party is not the only party which is the guardian of principle. What I shall address to your Lordships is not a matter of expediency but a careful review of the arguments put forward before your House and the conclusion that I believe your Lordships should reach.
We have had a somewhat bipartisan day, which is not surprising, because the Bill my noble friend has brought before your Lordships is a Bill introduced by this Conservative Government to implement a decision taken, as the noble Baroness readily admitted, by a Labour Government in 1976, using a procedure pioneered by the wartime Government but introduced by a Labour Government in 1945 and amended by another Labour Government in 1965. The decision was to build a bypass to take the A. 30 out of Okehampton, and take it to the south of the town rather than to the north.
Nobody denies that new major roads affect the countryside, but then nobody denies either that Okehampton needs a bypass. You do not need aerial

1515
photographs of traffic jams extending—in spite of the holiday route that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says is coping fairly well—four miles to the west of the town and seven miles to the east of it, in August, to convince you of that. You do not have to be aware of the fury and frustration, nor to count the daily loss of between £3,000 and £5,000 caused by that appalling bottleneck to commercial goods vehicles. You only have to stand in Okehampton on a busy day to see what this dreadful stream of traffic, 13,000 vehicles a day in August, is doing to the town and its people, to know that there is a need to know that that need is urgent. That has been recognised freely by more speakers than I have time to catalogue.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful for those "Hear, hears". I think there are 37 names on the list. If I gave each of them one minute, I should have spoken for twice as long as your Lordships would wish and not started my speech; so I shall not.
The question therefore is not, "Do we have to drive a road through the countryside at all?" but, "Which is the best way to do it?" That question was first answered in 1976, when the Government of the day decided, after public consultation (be it noted) that the southern route was the best. It was the same Government who embodied that decision in the very orders that we are now considering. Their decison was then tested by an independent inspector, presiding over a public inquiry. That examination in public lasted 96 days. In the course of it, he heard all shades of opinion on both sides of the question. At the end of it, he endorsed the decision, as had the majority of respondents when the Department of the Environment consulted the public in 1975: as do Devon County Council, in whose area Okehampton lies; as do Cornwall County Council, whose lines of communication with the whole of the United Kingdom are, as my noble friend Lady Vickers ably pointed out, strangled by the Okehampton block, with the results highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Saint Levan; as do both the district council and the town council of Okehampton itself, and as do all the other parish councils in west Devon.
Every tier of local government has pronounced in favour of the southern route. It is not their objections that have required this debate. They have not any. But objections to the southern route there were, and a Joint Select Committee of both Houses sat to consider them. It heard objectors and it heard their witnesses. It also heard the Department of Transport and its witnesses. As my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford pointed out, and as my noble friend Lord Henley confirmed, it neither called nor heard any of the private proponents of the southern route, nor the private opponents of the northern route, which is an interesting reflection given that my noble friend Lord Molson argued that the Bill should be stopped so as to protect the liberty of appeal by private interests.
The committee did not wish to go over the same ground as the public inquiry. Yet, after sitting for 15 days, it decided to overturn the conclusion that the public inquiry had endorsed. The effect of that decision was to give my right honourable friend the
1516
Secretary of State for Transport a choice between, on the one hand, dropping the orders and the Southern route entirely, and, on the other, bringing the matter to the Floor of both Houses. He chose the latter course. He did so because, apart from its intrusion into the national park (to which I shall return) the chosen southern route is preferable to any northern route on every count.
When I first heard of my right honourable friend's decision and reflected that I might get involved in this debate, I must confess I was a little apprehensive. At that stage, I was guided by nothing but hearsay and the press. The impression I got was, I think, shared by a great many people, some of them now sitting in this House. The Secretary of State was going against the recommendation of a Select Committee involving and including Members of your Lordships' House. He was proposing to drive a noisy and conspicuous shaft of traffic through the pristine acres of a national park. He would be flinging a viaduct over a peaceful valley, piercing the bird-embroidered silence of a sequestered wood and pouring tarmacadam over some 23 acres of statutory open space.
How easy it is to describe this proposal in those terms! And how seriously misleading they are! For a start, they ignore the fact that we have agreed that there has to be a road somewhere.
Lord Foot: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Elton: My Lords, there was a battle between courtesy and expediency in my heart at that moment, which the noble Lord will understand. But I have been speaking for six minutes. Your Lordships want to go to bed. The noble Lord has spoken, I think, for over 30 minutes already. I think he has had his ration.
The next thing that that picture suggests is a roaring and conspicuous ribbon of traffic glinting across the skyline. In fact, for most of its length the road runs at the edge of the national park, next to a working railway tucked into a valley on an otherwise convex, tree-covered slope. If you walk a short distance up that slope across the projected line of the road, as I have done—and I do not doubt that many of your Lordships have, too—into the national park and then look back, the line of the road is hidden by the contours of the ground. Vehicles on it would also be screened by banks of earth and plantations of trees, as well as the existing woodlands that enclose the proposed route for nine-tenths of its length already.
If you look back, what you see is not, therefore, the line of the road. You see something else. What you see, spread out before you in all its fruitful beauty, is the rolling, unspoiled, productive agricultural land to the north of Okehampton. It really is a wonderful view. That view is one of the principal assets of the national park itself, from which you see it. So let us be quite clear. Whatever northern route is chosen—and none has been chosen yet—it would run right across that landscape, for all the walkers to gaze upon from the Tor, like (as my noble friend Lord Arran put it) a sore thumb.
Fourth, that description describes Meldon Wood as though it was a remote and silent spinney innocent of

1517
the 20th century. The facts are different. At one end of it is the A.30 packed with the thundering traffic that we wish to move throughout the summer months, and at the other is a quarry with blasting on Thursdays. The wood itself is bisected by a modern metalled road linking the two and in constant use by heavy lorries removing the stone that the blasting has fragmented. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, conclusively proved that, in addition, the wood is not of national ecological importance.
The fifth misrepresentation is that it omits to state that the land taken from the wood for the new road will now be more than compensated for by land closer to the town, more accessible to its people and less troubled by the working quarry; and that all this land will become statutory open space. And, finally, it gives no indication of the actual accessibility of the alternative route. No agreed and surveyed northern route yet exists. Noble Lords have suggested that one could be chosen and completed extra-specially fast. The normal time is 13 years. It may be disagreeable, but it is the truth. With our best efforts, we might get it down to nine. But a proposal for any northern route would provoke a huge rumpus and much hostility.
Your Lordships have been saved two minutes of my speech by the disappearance of my notes. All the alternatives would cause the closure of Aggett's Quarry, with the loss of 14 jobs locally, and would cause the destruction of a valuable archaeological site of the Roman period, the loss of much productive, agricultural land and the construction of a 90-ft high viaduct over the Knowle Valley on the doorstep of Okehampton, from which all the routes spring.
It would also emerge that the northern industrial estate cannot, because of the levels, actually reach the new road suggested by the objectors by a direct link at that level. The new route therefore might itself also fail to get approval and there would be no road. But even if it was accepted it would still take at least nine years from now to complete and open, whereas the present route can be completed and opened in three. To choose the northern route would be to sentence the citizens of Okehampton to six years more of conditions which your Lordships would not willingly suffer yourselves for more than six minutes.
The first of the noble Lords opposed to this Bill was my noble friend Lord Molson. My noble friend has given in his amendment four grounds of objection. I must say at the start how very much I enjoyed and admired the speech which he made in moving his amendment. He will not expect me to agree with him but he will allow me to admire the way he spoke.
The first of his four grounds of objection is that the orders breach assurances given by the Lord Privy Seal. Those assurances were given 40 years ago, and much water has flowed under the bridge since then; but they still hold good. My noble friend quoted extensively from Mr. Greenwood's speech in cols. 2180 and 2181 of Hansard. He finished by quoting the underlining by the Lord Privy Seal of his pledge not to use the procedure to beat down opposition, to carry though proposals without due regard to all the interests that ought to be considered. The Lord Privy Seal went on four lines later to say words, which my noble friend did
1518
not quote, in illumination of this undertaking. The words were:
"We hope to get on to the Floor of the House discussions which go to the root of Ministerial orders."
That was the undertaking he gave and that is what we are now doing. What the Lord Privy Seal said was that Parliament as a whole ought to consider issues of principle and policy and not just leave it to a joint committee. My noble friend's suggestion that because a policy issue is at stake we should have prevented the issue from going to a joint committee in the first place, I must most respectfully suggest, is not a realistic one.
Perhaps this is the moment to bring in the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who sought to tie the decision by the Secretary of State after the inquiry to the memorial presented by the Secretary of State before the inquiry. The memorial presented by my right honourable friend reflected the fact that the special parliamentary procedure is specifically to deal with questions of open space—a technical term, my Lords—and showed in paragraphs 5 and 6 that the petition stated that its central concern was national policy open national parks and that it was put forward as some sort of test case to determine future policy on that matter.
That memorial in no way prejudiced his view of the case in question, and he did not form that view until the committee had reported. There was no basis therefore on which he could have baulked the committee's work or warned the petitioners not to embark on their chosen course. Nor do I believe that the reversal of the committee's decision will deter future petitioners from recourse to the special parliamentary procedure any more than reversals by the Court of Appeal of decisions of inferior courts does in practice deter people from recourse to the law.
Lord Melchett: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember, as those who are sitting behind him and were not in the Chamber at the time will not, that I was interrupted twice by a Member of the Government Front Bench during my speech. I am very grateful to him for the courtesy he has shown in giving way—something not shown by those behind him. The noble Lord has not yet said what the question of government policy, of national principle, was which the Secretary of State for Transport had in his mind when he first made representations to the authorities in both Houses, and that was the issue I raised with him.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I understood the noble Lord, he was referring to the memorial. I read the memorial and I extracted the relevant parts. If the noble Lord is referring to something else, I shall study what he has said in Hansard and I shall write to him. And, following the custom of the House, I will put a copy of the letter in the Library so that the noble Lord will not have to publish the results himself.
The second of my noble friend's grounds for objection was that the Bill contravenes the constitutional custom of successive governments. I turn swiftly—and I am contracting my argument for reasons of time—to the case to which the noble Lord

1519
himelf referred of the Mid-North Hants Water Board Order in 1949. It is a long time ago but it is a precedent. In that case as in this, the Government took the same constitutional course specifically provided for in the Act because issues of policy were at stake. In that case, as in this, the Bill was drafted to overturn decisions of the statutory joint committee. The fact that the Government accepted one of those decisions does not alter the fact that they overturned the rest of them; and I assure my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford that it does provide a precedent.
My noble friend's third ground is that the Bill contravenes the policy in Circular 4/76. The policy at paragraph 58 is that no new route for long distance traffic should be constructed through a national park, unless it has been demonstrated that there is a compelling need that would not be met by any reasonable alternative means.
The issue of compelling need is not in doubt—your Lordships have concluded that, obviously, tonight—and with the inspector, quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I believe that it would not be reasonable to choose as the alternative a route that is substantially longer, that would cost considerably more, that would take at least six years longer to complete, that would have a considerable environmental impact, that would damage an archaeological site and that would take the whole of their livelihood from 14 quarry men and part of their livelihood from a number of farmers. That would be unreasonable and I maintain—and I reassure those concerned for the future of national parks—that the policy in Circular 4/76 is intact.
My noble friend's last objection is that this Bill would override the recommendation of a Joint Select Committee. Deep as is our respect for our committees, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. None of us has ever held that the authority of a part of either House is superior to that of the whole. A fear expressed by my noble friend Lord Molson, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and many other Peers, including my noble friend Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, is the fear that supporting the inspector would provide a precedent for building roads into the national parks. The noble and learned Lord has put beyond doubt that no public inquiry can provide a precedent for another.
That was the anxiety that noble Lords expressed. I am glad to endorse and to re-confirm, as I have, that the policy is intact. And all the care and trouble expended in both Houses of Parliament, including so many of your Lordships who have researched and so ably spoken this evening, have shown how little is the real danger of a road being slipped in unnoticed by the Houses of Parliament.
I turn therefore to the second amendment on the Order Paper, which none in favour of the northern route can in logic support, and to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The noble Lord regrets that under this procedure the Government have seen fit to introduce a Bill for this purpose. I shall not repeat what the Lord Privy Seal of the day said about it being a duty of future governments on their own judgment to bring matters like this to the Floor of the House. Your Lordships can see it when you read my noble friend's
1520
speech. It is what follows in his amendment that matters.
The noble Lords want the Government to compensate the Dartmoor National Park Authority in both cash and kind for loss of its land. The authority is not a substantial landowner and the route chosen has not taken a single yard of national park authority-owned land from it. There cannot therefore be any question of financial compensation to the national park authority for the loss of land which it has not suffered, even if that were appropriate. But I can assure the noble Lord that there will be cash compensation, paid of course to the proper recipients who will be the owners of the land taken for the road. That should take care of the first leg of the argument. The noble Lord's plea is not only for cash; it is also for compensation in kind, and compensation in kind there will be, too. There will be, for a start, over 70,000 trees planted to replace the 1,100 trees felled to make way for the road. The new trees will be placed to screen it from sight and to blanket the sound of the traffic. I should have expected the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to have welcomed that rather than to refer to them as green paint on the exhibition board. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had land in mind rather than trees and he will now know that we are negotiating for about 40 acres of land to replace the 23 acres of open space needed for the road. The bulk of the new land will be closer to Okehampton and more accessible to it. So there will be compensation both in cash and in kind, as his amendment asks.
The question of adjustments raised the matter of the existing boundaries of the national park. The noble Baroness, Lady White, will forgive me if I spend one minute on that. She has reminded your Lordships that further to the east the route of the A. 30 trunk road is being moved to the north, so that it comes out of the national park, 920 acres of which at present it separates from the rest of the park. When the new route is opened that 920 acres will be to the south of it and so will 1,200 more acres that are not at present national park land. Your Lordships will understand that I can say nothing that might prejudice any future decision on the subject, but clearly the Countryside Commission will wish to consider whether this land will not form a suitable and welcome addition to the Dartmoor national park. I can tell the noble Baroness that the Dartmoor National Park Authority is consulting on this very matter now.
I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to your Lordships, that in every respect in which his amendment asks the Government to do what it is proper and possible for them to do his demands are already being met. Landowners will be compensated in cash. Users will be compensated in kind, including land in mitigation. We will of course keep the Dartmoor National Park Authority fully informed of developments and consult them as he asks about the effects that they will have upon it. I give that undertaking freely. It does not take an amendment to wring it from me.
Finally, the amendment is in any case defective because we cannot compensate the national park authority in cash for land which it does not own. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has pointed out, the amendment also pursues an objective proper to

1521
legislation and not to homily. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment tonight. If he were to do so, I should have to ask your Lordships to reject it most firmly.
In conclusion, the decision to drive a new road through open countryside is always a sad one, and the choice of route is always difficult. But in this case the need for a bypass is clearly imperative. The choice is therefore inescapable. It has to be made. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has rightly emphasised the importance of the environmental considerations. I have visited the exhibitions, I have toiled through the papers, I have examined the map and I have walked the course itself on the ground. I am in no doubt that if a choice must be made—and it must—then on environmental grounds, as well as on all others, the southern route is the route to choose. That is not a specious position just because the noble Baroness, Lady David, does not agree with it. The choice has in any case already been made. As my noble friend Lord Halsbury says, now is the time to stick to it and get on with the job. Let us do just that.
11.4 p.m.
Lord Molson: My Lords, it would be a very poor return for the courtesy with which your Lordships listened to my rather long opening speech if I made another one now. It has been a memorable debate and one of very high quality. I want to emphasise two things. One is that we have had renewed assurances from the Government that this will not be treated as a precedent for the future. They have emphasised in all their speeches, as have noble Lords in all parts of the House, the outstanding importance of the preservation of amenities, especially in the national parks. But on the matter of principle I feel that I must press the amendment and take your Lordships' opinion.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the original Question was, "That this Bill be now considered on Report", since when an amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in the terms set out on the Order Paper. The Question that I have to put to the House therefore is, That this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content".
11.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 112.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Galpern, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Caradon, L.

Grey, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hunt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Denington, B.

McNair, L.

Ezra, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

1522

Melchett, L.

Stallard, L.

Molson, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wilson of Langside, I

Rea, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Russell, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Arran, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bathurst, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belstead, L.

Lawrence, L.

Biddulph, L.

Layton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brentford, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Burton, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey. V.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chesham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clinton, L.

Mulley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne. L.

Cornwallis, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cowley, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Crathorne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Croft, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Plummer of St Marvlebone. L.

Davidson, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Roberthall, L.

Digby, L.

Rodney, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Savile, L.

Exmouth, V.

Sherfield, L.

Falmouth, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fisher, L.

Somerset, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Geddes, L.

Strafford, E.

Glanusk, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinton, E.

Greenway, L.

Teviot, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Haig, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Truro, Bp.

Halsbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vickers, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vinson, L.

Hood, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.24 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as was the case with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, it would be wrong of me to make a further speech, particularly as I spoke for 22 minutes at the beginning of the debate. However, it will be noticed that the amendment in my name does not stop the Government from getting the Bill. What it does is express regret at the procedure that has been

1523
followed. Incidentally, there was not a single word in the Government's reply regarding the views of the Countryside Commission. It also emphasises that it is not felt that the procedure has been followed correctly in this case.
If passed, the amendment will serve as a warning to any Government to be very chary of using this procedure in future. Further, in the words of my noble friend Lady David, it might be that by passing this amendment we shall cause to be undertaken a review of the procedure for matters of this kind.
I welcome the Minister's point about compensation, but we want to ensure that consultation with the Dartmoor National Park Authority deals with the points in my amendment. For those reasons I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment. I hope that those who thought that they should not stop the Government from getting the Bill will vote solidly on this occasion for this amendment, which I now beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now considered on Report, at end to insert ("but that this House regrets the decision of the Government to introduce this Bill, and urges the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Dartmoor National Park Authority, to provide adequate compensation to the authority, both financial and in kind, to provide suitably for loss of amenities and land.").—(Lord Underhill.)
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the original Question was, "That this Bill be now considered on Report", since when an amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in the terms set out on the Order Paper. The Question that I have to put therefore is, That the said amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content".
11.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Melchett, L.

Caradon, L.

Molson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Denington, B.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Underhill, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Grey, E.

White, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hunt, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

1524

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Arran, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Attlee, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Kimball, L.

Bathurst, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Belstead, L.

Lawrence, L.

Biddulph, L.

Layton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brentford, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Burton, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Chelwood, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chesham, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clinton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cowley, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Crathorne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Croft, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Davidson, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Digby, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Savile, L.

Elton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Exmouth, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Falmouth, V.

Somerset, D.

Fisher, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strafford, E.

Geddes, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glanusk, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Teviot, L.

Greenway, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Haig, E.

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Truro, Bp.

Ullswater, V.

Halsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Vickers, B.

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hood, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Hooper, B.

Young, B.

Howe, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.33 p.m.
On Question, Bill considered on Report.

Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND FOREIGN BORROWING TRANSACTIONS
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND FOREIGN BORROWING TRANSACTIONS
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: BORROWING APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: BORROWING APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
  GLC AND MCC PROPERTIES: TRANSFER TO SUCCESSOR BODIES
  GLC AND MCC PROPERTIES: TRANSFER TO SUCCESSOR BODIES
  EL SALVADOR: ALLEGED MACHINE-GUNNING INCIDENT
  EL SALVADOR: ALLEGED MACHINE-GUNNING INCIDENT
  PRESIDENT ORTEGA: EXCHANGE OF LETTERS
  PRESIDENT ORTEGA: EXCHANGE OF LETTERS
  NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTING: OPINION POLL
  NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTING: OPINION POLL
  PRESIDENT REAGAN: MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER
  PRESIDENT REAGAN: MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER