Sitting of 16 December 1985

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

    Scottish Coalfield
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on visits by Ministers in his Department to pits in the Scottish coalfield.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I was extremely impressed during my recent visit to the Scottish coalfield to hear of the measures being taken to reduce costs and improve productivity.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that to a large extent those measures are related to providing good industrial relations? Will he note that while some improvements have been made by reinstating some of the miners sacked during the strike, more that 130 men face this Christmas having been out of work for two years? Is he aware that there is increasing suspicion, indeed evidence, that some of those out of work are unemployed because of their trade union associations? Will the Minister take steps to approach the coal board again in Scotland to ensure that those men who have been unjustifiably treated receive fair treatment?
    Mr. Hunt: The reinstatement of sacked Scottish miners is a matter for the Scottish area. Comparisons vary
    2
    between different cases, and are neither useful nor valid. I understand that most of the dismissed miners in the Scottish area have been reinterviewed for reinstatement, and that more than 70 have been offered employment. Decisions following such reviews must be for area management, and those who have not been reinstated may take their case to an industrial tribunal.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that investment in the Scottish fields has increased from £61 million during the five years before 1979 to £160 million in the five years since then? Does that not confirm that the Government may claim credit for the growth of the coal industry?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a pleasure to respond to such a positive question. Investment in the Scottish coalfield has increased over the period my hon. Friend mentioned by 43 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable public anxiety that so many victimised Scottish miners will face another new year out of work? When the Minister visited Monktonhall—I think he was beneath my constituency briefly—was his attention drawn to the fact that Monktonhall is the gateway to the Musselburgh bay coalfield, which is as big as any new coalfield which may be available in England or elsewhere? When will the Government make it possible to develop that new coalfield?
    Mr. Hunt: Individual investment decisions are for local management. I wish that more Labour Members would pay tribute to what has been a remarkable turn round in the Scottish coalfield since the end of the sad political strike led by Mr. Scargill, which resulted in the number of producing faces in Scotland decreasing from 31 to 19. Last week output had returned to its pre-strike level of 95,000 tonnes a week. That is a creditable achievement.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that no Labour Member will be reluctant to pay tribute to the activities of miners, whether in the Scottish or any other coalfield? Does he realise that he seems to move the goalposts every time he is asked a question about victimised miners? To

    3
    start with it was said that none had to be reinstated. Is he aware that it is time for a public inquiry into the management and administration of the NCB? Many victimised miners have not been reinstated because of victimisation or another reason? Is the Minister further aware that when he went beneath Monktonhall, he issued a press release and said how cynical Labour Members were about the future of Monktonhall? I hope that he was properly briefed, because if the peacock seam had never been developed, Monktonhall would have been in jeopardy.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member will be aware that the new face on which so much hope is being placed is to be started at the beginning of January and is in the Stairhead seam. Much is hoped of that development. No Conservative Member has said that no dismissed miner should get his job back. That is a matter on which individual management should decide. However, we should pay more attention to the real victimised miners. Fortunately, there are few now left, but there are still outrageous examples of intimidation of those men who, by their courage and determination, so impressed the country at the time.

    Polkemmet Bing (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he has taken as a result of the Under-Secretary of State's visit on Tuesday 26 November to Polkemmet Bing, West Lothian.
    Mr. David Hunt: Following my visit to Polkemmet Bing, I was assured by the NCB Scottish area officials and the environmental health officers from West Lothian district council, who attended with me, that everything possible was being done to overcome the serious situation.
    Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister publicly, as I have privately, for making the detour there. Will he give this copper piping that I am holding, which I was given yesterday by a constituent, Mr. Alec Gibson, to his analysts, because if the sulphur emissions do that to copper, what do they do to the guts and intestines of my constituents? Will he provide resources for continuous 24-hour work to rectify this desperate problem? I saw the Bing yet again yesterday, and it is a serious health hazard.
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the thanks that he has given so publicly. I checked with the local district council officials who attended with me whether the fumes were being carefully monitored so as to avoid any noxious fumes causing a deleterious impact on the local environment and people. I was assured that monitoring is taking place and is being carefully checked. As to 24-hour working, I understand that work cannot go any faster because of the safety considerations for the men who are trying to alleviate the problem. Naturally, I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's points with the coal board's chief scientist for Scotland.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of United Kingdom electricity generation comes from (a) nuclear, (b) oil, (c) coal and (d) hydro sources; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): For 1983 the
    4
    proportions were 17·6 per cent. for nuclear, 7·3 per cent. for oil, 72·9 per cent. for coal and 2·2 per cent. for hydro. The proportions in 1984, which were distorted by the strike in the coal industry, were 18·6 per cent. for nuclear, 32·4 per cent. for oil, 46·5 per cent. for coal and 2·5 per cent. for hydro.
    Mr. Proctor: In view of the need to get a better balance in electricity generation, and of the need to increase its nuclear proportion, and in the light of the disturbing comments in the newspapers this morning, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the nuclear industry has a proven, successful and safe track record?
    Mr. Goodlad: I cannot comment on the reports in the newspapers, but I am delighted to confirm that the safety record of the nuclear industry is, as my hon. Friend says, excellent.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware of the disappointment and anger in Scotland at the Government's half-hearted support for alternative sources of energy such as peat and wind, wave and hydro power, most of which have no adverse effects on the environment? Are the Government prepared to do something to investigate such alternative sources?
    Mr. Goodlad: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is an important role for alternative sources of energy, which is why substantial amounts of money have been committed by the Government to research into these matters, which the advisory committee on research and development under the chairmanship of Sir Sam Edwards said were properly directed in the circumstances, and of the right amount.
    Dr. Michael Clark: As many countries are pressing ahead strongly with nuclear energy, and as our neighbours across the Channel are already producing about 60 per cent. of their electricity from nuclear sources, does my hon. Friend agree that our proportion of electricity produced from nuclear energy, at about 17 or 18 per cent., is very disappointing? What measures has my hon. Friend in hand to increase the percentages?
    Mr. Goodlad: The level of nuclear generation is as my hon. Friend stated it. When the first and second generations of AGRs are fully operational, the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear stations should be about 25 per cent. I welcome that development. After that, the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry is important, and upon that I cannot predict or comment.
    Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister cannot shelter behind his earlier statement that he cannot comment upon newspaper reports. Surely it is in the interests of all that nuclear power should not be developed further until we can be assured that the nuclear industry can dispose safely of its waste. The Select Committee on the Environment, whose leaked report is referred to in The Times today, has made this point. It is completely irresponsible of the Government to go ahead with any such development until they can give that assurance to the public.
    Mr. Goodlad: I cannot comment in advance upon a Select Committee report which I understand is expected in the new year. The decision to continue reprocessing was taken by Parliament in 1978 when the hon. Lady's party was in government. Having regard to the national interest

    5
    and the total fuel cycle, no insuperable environmental problems have subsequently arisen which might lead to a reconsideration of this decision.
    Mr. Sackville: I recognise the potential benefits of cheaper coal through opencast mining, but will my hon. Friend say something about his Department's environmental policy on opencast mining, particularly in the context of my constituency where three separate operations are being applied for, which potentially could cause very severe damage to the environment?
    Mr. Goodlad: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a very close interest in this subject as it affects his constituency. Environmental problems are primarily a matter for the Department of the Environment, but I know that the National Coal Board has them very much in mind.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman not being a little too optimistic about thermo-nuclear power generation? America, for example, will not commission any more nuclear power stations this century. As we always seem to fall in line with America on other matters, it is possible that we shall fall into line there? As for the hon. Gentleman's answer about alternative sources of energy, is he not being too optimistic about the spending on alternative sources of energy? It is about £14 million. We learnt on Friday from Hansard that we are spending, through Rubican and Young, £10·5 million on energy conservation advertising.
    Mr. Goodlad: The Government attach great importance to energy conservation, as we do to alternative sources of energy. I said earlier that the advisory committee on research and development had said that the division of research funds for investigating alternative energy sources was appropriate. I am not responsible for what happens in the United States of America, but I have every confidence that the nuclear power programme will be as successful under this Government as it was under the hon. Gentleman's Government.

    British Gas
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding the reaction to the detailed proposals for the privatisation of British Gas and the proposed regulation of the corporation in future.
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Energy what further representations he has received on the proposed privatisation of British Gas.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I continue to receive representations from various organisations and individuals regarding our proposals for the privatisation of British Gas.
    Mr. Dykes: In a sense, is not the word "privatisation" wrong? Does my right hon. Friend agree that when this corporation is truly publicly owned by members of the public owning shares in it, they will have a greater sense of ownership than they do with a remote state corporation that is run by faceless bureaucrats? They will be able to identify with the corporation, which has provided a better and better service in recent years and does not need to be oppressed by an excessive regulatory system.
    Mr. Walker: I very much look forward to the employees, managers and customers of British Gas having a direct participation in this industry.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State recognise that many people are concerned about the future of gas showrooms after privatisation, particularly about the future of showrooms such as Padiham in my constituency? They provide an essential service by selling goods and providing a point at which to pay bills and report faults. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that these showrooms are kept open after privatisation?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the existing management of British Gas has pursued a positive policy towards gas showrooms. The present management of British Gas will carry out the management of this industry after privatisation.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that since the publication of the Bill and the Second Reading debate a number of people who are very much concerned with the electricity industry are worried about the very considerable freedom that the gas industry will obtain after the Bill becomes law? They feel that it will work adversely against some of the controls which will still apply to the electricity industry. Has my right hon. Friend received such representations, and if so will he bear the matter in mind?
    Mr. Walker: We shall certainly bear the matter in mind, but my hon. Friend has illustrated the fact that in certain markets where there has been fierce competition between gas, electricity and oil, that competition will continue, as it should in the interests of commerce and industry.
    Mr. Mason: In view of the rumours that are rife in the coalfields about the privatisation of the coal industry, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he has no plans whatever of privatising any parts of that industry—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about gas.
    Mr. Rowlands: In view of the widespread observations and criticism of the draft British Gas licence that the Secretary of State issued last week, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this is a tentative first draft, that he has not entered into any firm understanding or agreements with British. Gas, and consequently that the licence can be the subject of substantial change?
    Mr Walker: The joy of a parliamentary democracy and of entering a Committee stage is that everything is debatable. All I can say is that it is a very good draft, given that I drafted it myself.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is genuine concern about the Government's proposals for dealing with a monopoly, promoting competition and ensuring protection for the consumer? Will he make it clear that the Standing Committee, which meets tomorrow, will discuss these issues with a genuinely open mind and will be prepared to accept serious, constructive and even major suggestions to amend the Bill in order to achieve the kind of safeguard which at present it appears to lack?
    Mr. Walker: I very much hope that the Standing Committee will be very open minded to all the arguments that are put. I am sure the Opposition are hoping that the

    7
    same will happen to their arguments. As for competition, I doubt whether anyone can say that this Bill is not far better than anything that has existed previously.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any proposals to change the pattern of working hours or to make any changes in legislation concerning health, safety and working conditions in the coal industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Secretary of State check with the NCB on the current state of play of the board's preparations to press for changes in the working structure of the industry, such as a 10-hour production shift? Does he accept that in the coalfield areas, such as my own, where unemployment is now rising to 30 per cent., the idea of a 10-hour shift will not receive an ecstatic welcome?
    Mr. Walker: As I clearly said in my reply, I have received no proposals for change, and if I do I shall consider them carefully. If there were to be such proposals, I would expect the unions concerned fully to put their representations and viewpoints, which I would consider carefully.
    Mr. Woodall: The right hon. Gentleman has already changed the pattern of working hours for my constituents, particularly at the Kinsley drift mine, which is threatened with closure even though it was opened only in 1979. If that pit is closed, that will change working hours. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that?
    Mr. Walker: We have agreed to modified procedures to consider any closures, which will be considered in the normal way.
    Mr. Eadie: Although we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement on proposed safety legislation or regulations, does he accept that some hon. Members have associations with the unions and that they have heard disturbing rumours? We take the view that safety in the mining industry is something about which we cannot be complacent and that constant vigilance is required. I hope that the Secretary of State will keep his eye firmly fixed on any proposal to amend regulations or legislation that could result in hazards for miners working underground.
    Mr. Walker: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the fact that in an industry such as mining the safety requirement provisions are vital, and I shall look at this in that light.

    Energy Efficiency Programme
    Mr. Nichollsasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many industrial and commercial schemes under the Government's energy efficiency programme are now approved or under way.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Energy Efficiency Office runs the energy efficiency demonstration scheme, the monitoring and targeting programme and the energy efficency survey scheme, and there are many other initiatives aimed at helping industry and commerce. I am delighted to say that all these schemes have reached record levels during the past year and the Government aim to build on this success during Energy Efficiency Year.
    Mr. Nicholls: I thank my right hon. Friend for that clearly encouraging reply, but does he agree that there is a continuing need for private investment and practical involvement in Energy Efficiency Year if the aims of the campaign are to be achieved?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I very much share that view. I know of no other area of the British economy where it is possible for us to improve our economic performance by £7 billion a year. We are way behind in the international league, and I hope that as a result of next year's activities, the preparations for which have been encouraging, we shall substantially improve our position.
    Mr. Douglas: As one of the criteria for assessing the benefits of the energy efficiency scheme is the price of fuels, what view does the right hon. Gentleman take of the oil price over the next two to three months?
    Mr. Walker: I should be foolish if I took any view, but I shall always be interested in the speculation and views of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Rowlands: One of the most important ways of improving energy efficiency is to improve insulation standards. Have the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for the Environment any proposals to put to the House about improving building regulations to cover insulation?
    Mr. Walker: Building regulations can be examined, but existing insulation provisions ensure that it is very much to the benefit of any family to install basic draught proofing and insulation. I am delighted to say that we are doing much more to encourage a widespread voluntary movement to help those on lower incomes.

    Coal Imports
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has been informed of the likely level of coal imports until the end of 1985 by the chairman of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The chairman of the NCB is not responsible for coal imports. The increase in imports which has taken place this year has been influenced by contracts placed during the strike and by loss of confidence in the security of indigenous supplies. I hope that by improved performance we can return to the 1983 position, when Britain was a net exporter.
    Mr. Eadie: We would expect the Secretary of State to be worried about coal imports, even this year, because of their effect on the prospects of the mining industry. Baron Marshall has made veiled threats today about coal imports in 1986, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there still persists, in circles of which we are both aware, the allegation that the NCB refused an order for £3 million of exports to Denmark? Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us about that allegation?
    Mr. Walker: I have no details of anybody refusing an order at any sensible price. I am sure that the NCB would be eager to take advantage of such an opportunity, and the present chairman of the board has shown more interest than perhaps any of his predecessors in the possibilities for exports.
    The main encouraging sign that we shall not need imports is that, for the first time in the history of the coal

    9
    industry, productivity last week totalled more than 3 tonnes per man shift. That encouraging trend and the improved efficiency of the industry will prevent the need for imports.
    Mr. Rost: Now that the board needs to waste fewer of its resources on subsidising hopelessly high-cost coal production and can instead reallocate those resources to opening new, low-cost coalfields, will it not be a question of re-establishing our export orders, rather than having to import? British coal will be competitive again.
    Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that in the next few years, with the high investment and improved productivity that are taking place, Britain can have the most efficient and successful coal industry in western Europe by a long way. That will open a range of new opportunities, including export opportunities.
    Mr. Ryman: Is not the right hon. Gentleman far too complacent about the present state of the coal industry? Bearing in mind the high level of imports and the new colliery review procedure, which has not got under way and is not understood by the Department of Energy, the NCB or the NUM, it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House when the new colliery review procedure, in so far as he knows anything about it, will begin its proceedings.
    Mr. Walker: I hope that that will be done very soon. The finer points of detail were settled last week. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said in my original reply, namely that in 1983 Britain was a net exporter of coal. The effects of the strike and the insecurity and loss of supplies created the need for increased imports of coal. I hope that the performance of the industry will ensure that that need is eliminated.
    Mr. Skinner: How can it make sense to read reports during the past few days of ships loaded with 110,000 tonnes of coal coming into the north-east at a time when Britain's non-oil trade deficit is well over £4,000 million?
    Mr. Walker: I repeat that the strike, which was so enthusiastically supported by the hon. Gentleman, was the main reason for the large increase in imports.

    British Gas
    Mr. Spencerasked the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements will be made for the pension fund of British Gas when it is privatised.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I understand from the corporation that there will be no change in the management of the funds or the benefits they provide.
    Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for trade union leaders to stop indulging in scandalous scaremongering about this subject? Does he believe that that is in direct proportion to their fear that the privatisation of gas will be a roaring success?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Such talk about the pension fund is complete scaremongering. Those who indulge in it are trying to detract from the real benefits to the consumer, the employees and the management of that industry.
    Mr. Eastham: If, as the Minister suggests, there will be real benefits after privatisation, can he tell the House whether gas will become cheaper?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to attend last week's debate. With the greater spur for efficiency that a privatised industry will undoubtedly create, there are no grounds for thinking that the price of gas will be higher than it would otherwise be.

    Alternative Energy Sources
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Community Council of Ministers about alternative sources of energy.
    Mr. Goodlad: I am pleased to say that the Council of Ministers has, in recent months, agreed substantial new Community programmes on research and development and on the demonstration of new technologies in non-nuclear energy. A considerable proportion of the funds allocated to both programmes will be devoted to renewable energy sources, and my Department intends to encourage strong British participation.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend believe that the balance between Community and national research into alternative sources of energy is right? Should a larger proportion of it be undertaken on a Community basis?
    Mr. Goodlad: The proportion is about right. Each member state has specific needs for which nationality funded research, development and demonstration is appropriate. Other matters of concern to the entire Community are suitable for Community action.

    British Gas
    Mr. Portilloasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish a draft licence under which British Gas will operate after privatisation.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend will now be aware, the draft licence was made available to the House on Monday 9 December.
    Mr. Portillo: I thank my right hon. Friend for making available the draft licence before the Second Reading debate last week. Has he had an opportunity to consider whether a specific duty in the Bill on the regulator to promote competition would help to strengthen the licence that he has produced?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend must recognise that, unlike other industries that supply services or materials in the domestic market, there is no scope for providing two separate pipelines to two houses in the same street. It was in recognition of that fact that we drafted the Bill and licence in the way that we did. However, we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter in Committee.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that the draft licence hardly enlightens the House, since it is almost incomprehensible? Does he also accept that although those who will serve on the Committee might be pleased that the licence was published last week, they will still wish to know how much the Government expect to make from the sale of the British Gas Corporation.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand those simple mathematics. I look forward to debating the matter with him in the weeks ahead.
    Mr. Rowlands: May we take it from the reply that the Secretary of State gave a few moments ago to our questions that this draft licence is a firm deal between the Secretary of State and Sir Denis Rooke and is not subject to any substantial change?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is a draft licence, which was put before the house to give hon. Members the opportunity to debate it. The House will have full opportunities to consider this important matter.

    NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
    Mr. Boyesasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his monitoring of the funds available to National Coal Board (Enterprise) Limited.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Government will continue to monitor closely the funds available to NCB (Enterprise). By the end of November £4·4 million had been committed in support of 222 projects, and £600,000 had been committed to help more than 40 enterprise agencies to start up or to expand.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of money from NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. being used to study why industry does or does not go to former coal mining areas? If infrastructure problems were found, for example, would the right hon. Gentleman approve of road links with motorways being developed by NCB (Enterprise) money so that industries could see former mining villages as more attractive places in which to invest?
    Mr. Walker: I understand that point. Obviously, expenditure on a road link would come from the designated programme of local authority and Government expenditure. There is nothing to stop NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. putting the importance of that development to those authorities. I know from my experience in the 1970s of the enormous benefit that was brought to the north-east by improvements in road communications.
    Mr. Haynes: Why does the Secretary of State keep bragging at the Dispatch Box about the amount of money available for NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. with respect to pit closures? Is he aware that in my area, where there have been a number of pit closures, the people think that the right hon. Gentleman put the money in the safe, locked it up and purposely lost the key?
    Mr. Walker: I am sorry that the Opposition are not delighted that, unlike what happened during the closures made by the Labour Government, a great deal of activity is now taking place.

    Coal Industry
    Mrs. Currieasked the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements there have been in the last year in productivity in the coal industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Overall deep-mined revenue output reached an all-time record high of over 3 tonnes per man shift in the week ending 30 November. This was the fourth successive week in which the industry's overall productivity record had been broken.
    Mrs. Currie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all the Front-Bench team on this astonishing record-breaking , activity in the coal industry. Is it not due substantially to the new incentive schemes and to much improved industrial relations in the industry, which gives the lie to everything that Arthur Scargill has been saying about the coal industry since he became president of the NUM?
    Mr. Walker: Gratitude is certainly due to the men and management who have produced the coal. It is remarkable that in the last five years of the Labour Government the highest output figure was 2·28 tonnes per man shift. It is now 3 tonnes per man shift.
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss industrial relations in the industry.
    Mr. David Hunt: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this increased production will not continue unless industrial relations are improved? Whatever the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) may have said, I do not recollect the industrial relations record being so low since nationalisation of the mining industry. Recently, the NCB chairman informed me that the position of sacked men differs from area to area, whether or not they have been made redundant. Men may have committed similar offences, but those who work in one area will get their jobs back, while those who work in another will not. Is that justice?
    Mr. Hunt: I have been underground seven times in the past few months and been impressed by the way in which the men have come together after the strike. Continual talk of perpetuating divisions only damages a great industry that is shrugging off a disastrous political strike.
    Mr. Dixon: Did the hon. Gentleman speak to the NCB chairman about the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme? I wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 August. The reply, on 11 September, said that the right hon. Gentleman was dealing urgently with the matter. Many miners in my constituency are worried about their future payments being jeopardised because of problems relating to national insurance contributions during the strike. When will the hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State make a statement?
    Mr. Hunt: The Government are carefully and urgently considering whether changes to the present legislation governing the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme would be appropriate given the failure of some mineworkers to make sufficient national insurance contributions during the strike to qualify for unemployment benefit during the benefit year 1986.
    Mr. Eadie: The Minister has talked about the industry returning to normality in relation to consultation and conciliation. None of us would disagree about that. Does he think that it is helpful to return to consultation and conciliation when the chairman of the National Coal Board was responsible for holding up the new modified coal procedure closure agreement, as the NCB demanded that the unions should pay the full cost of any hearing relating

    13
    to that procedure? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is a departure from the history of the industry and that it will not help to restore good industrial relations if the chairman of the NCB continues to conduct his business in that aggressive way?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should not put such a one-sided view. It is true that at a meeting on 10 December between the National Coal Board and the unions the costs of the final stage of the review procedure were allocated. The board will meet the cost of the secretariat and administrative services and pay half the cost of the fees payable to the members of the new body. That is a good result. I understand that it has been agreed that the new body will consider the proposed closure of Horden at its first inquiry in January, probably in the second week, with Bates' being considered in the next week.

    Industrial Energy Prices
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy that industrial energy prices reflect variations in mean temperature.
    Mr. Goodlad: No, Sir. Prices are a matter for the industries concerned.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has not industrial space heating grown into a major cost for industry? In so far as there is a clear variation in mean temperature levels between, for example, the north of England and Scotland and the south, is there not a justification for the Government to introduce an energy premium to help manufacturers in the north of England and Scotland who have to pay higher energy prices and who are now at a competitive disadvantage?
    Mr. Goodlad: As I said, tariff structures and prices are a matter for the industries concerned. Tariffs for gas and electricity are structured to reflect the cost of supply, including, where appropriate, the main variations in costs caused by patterns of demand. It is unlikely that relating prices to temperatures would result in more accurate representation of costs, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairmen of the Electricity Council and of the British Gas Corporation.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, although industrial costs are not directly related to mean temperature, there is a component, and that in Scotland and the north of England there is real concern that there is not a fair opportunity even to compete on energy prices, given that the Scottish electricity boards do not negotiate industrial prices with their customers because the base price is less than that of the electricity boards in England and Wales? Does the Minister accept that all electricity boards should negotiate fair prices with their industrial customers, and that it should not be confined to the industries operating in England and Wales?
    Mr. Goodlad: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairmen of the utilities concerned.

    Oil Reserves
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of total recoverable
    14
    reserves of oil in the United Kingdom land and waters; how much of this was discovered in the last five years: and how much oil has been recovered in the same period.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The latest estimate of total recoverable reserves of oil on the United Kingdom continental shelf is 2,000 million tonnes, of which 80 million tonnes were discovered in the past five years. Five hundred and fourteen million tonnes of oil were recovered over the same period.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend disappointed that only 80 million tonnes have been discovered in the past five years? In view of that, do the Government accept that our reserves will now fast run out, or is it still hoped that there are plenty of other reserves waiting to be discovered under our land or in our waters?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Our reserves will not fast run out because the reserve figure is based on reserves that are proven and probable. It excludes possible reserves, of which there are large quantities, and also much greater reserves that are still to be found. It is significant that in the past year, as in the first year of exploration for oil and gas, we are still making one discovery for every five wells drilled.

    Coal Miners (National Insurance)
    Mr. Allen McKayasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement regarding the position of mineworkers who did not pay national insurance contributions during the last mining dispute.
    Mr. Peter Walker: As I told the House on 25 November, I will make a statement as soon as conclusions have been reached on the details of any new scheme to cover the financial year 1986–87. In the meantime, I emphasise that the board is maintaining its policy of not making compulsorily redundant any man who wishes to stay in the industry.
    Mr. McKay: It is disgraceful that the Government have not yet made a statement about the plight of miners who did not pay national insurance contributions during the dispute. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the safety net under which those miners have been working will end on 6 January, before the House returns after Christmas, and that if they continue working and suffer serious injury or illness they will not receive welfare benefit?
    Mr. Walker: I recognise the importance of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is a complicated and difficult situation, but I hope that a statement will be made shortly.

    Margam Mine
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss the current position regarding the proposed Margam deep mine project in south Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: At my right hon. Friend's meetings with the chairman of the NCB, all aspects of the coal industry are discussed, including proposals for new mines. My right hon. Friend has not yet received proposals for approval of the Margam project.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Minister aware that 11,000 jobs have been lost in the coal industry in south Wales since 1979 and that only 700 alternative jobs have been offered by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Does he agree that there has been a great deal of misinformation about the Margam project? During the strike the NCB said that investment would go ahead, but that statement was totally untrue. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how that deception occurred?
    Mr. Hunt: No such deception has occurred. Planning permission has been granted by West Glamorgan county council for the Margam mine. However, as the hon. Lady will appreciate, decisions on the development of new mines and the extension of existing mines are matters for the National Coal Board. I have not yet received proposals for approval of the project at Margam or for the development at Carway Fawr, and I understand that it has not yet been decided whether it will be financially viable to proceed with them.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Research and Secretarial Allowances
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has had from hon. Members on research and secretarial allowances.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have answered a number of parliamentary questions and have discussed the matter with an all-party delegation.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Leader of the House agree that if there were improved secretarial and research allowances, some of his hon. Friends might not need to supplement their incomes by becoming consultants to companies such as those involved in the Channel tunnel development?
    Mr. Biffen: I see no relationship between the two points. The hon. Lady often makes a reasonable point, but she is spoiling that this afternoon.

    Members' Interests
    Mr. Winnickasked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations he has received about the extent of the requirement for hon. Members to disclose their interests; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Biffen: I have answered a number of parliamentary questions on this subject. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is to be a debate tomorrow on the recent report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what was shown on the television programme "Newsnight" last week is bound to strengthen the view that the Register of Members' Interests should contain at least some details of the outside financial sources of hon. Members? Should not the register be strengthened by making it an obligation for all hon. Members to fill in the details? I am sure that the Leader of the House will recognise that there is also the question whether hon. Members who have financial links should be able to vote?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises many points that are either in the substantive motion or in the amendments to it for tomorrow's debate. I do not think that I should anticipate what might be said tomorrow.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not unreasonable for hon. Members to be sponsored by trade unions? Has he any idea how many hon. Members are sponsored by trade unions? If it were necessary to oblige Members not to vote because they were sponsored by a business interest, would that not also apply to those sponsored by trade unions?
    Mr. Biffen: Again, my hon. Friend is enticing me to anticipate what I might say tomorrow evening. Wherever an interest exists, I hope that it will be registered.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an absolute assurance that there will be a free vote tomorrow night?
    Mr. Biffen: That is not my responsibility, but I expect that the House will behave as it always does on such occasions.

    Computers
    Mr. Boyesasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will report on the progress in providing computer facilities for hon. Members in the House.
    Mr. Biffen: Since 1983 hon. Members have been able to claim the costs of computers and word processors against the office, secretarial and research allowance. I understand that about a hundred Members have already taken advantage of that facility in order to purchase such equipment.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is not a sufficiently satisfactory approach to the matter? Should not all hon. Members who wish to have computers be issued with computers linked to a central resource mechanism, such as the Library? Is not the Government's attitude to modern technology so backward and sloppy that if the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends were running a secondhand shop it would go bust in a fortnight?
    Mr. Biffen: The principle of an office allowance being available for the purchase of such equipment is important. It is reviewed every four years. It would be unwise to suppose that just because some hon. Members find that facility of use, all hon. Members must or should.
    Mr. Skinner: If computers are brought in, will the Leader of the House guarantee that they will not be linked to the telephones, because we have enough trouble as it is?
    Mr. Biffen: I cannot give a categorical answer this afternoon, but I shall view the matter with the same sympathy as I extend to most of the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman makes.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Scientific Civil Service
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what assessment he makes of current morale in the scientific Civic Service.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The scientific Civil Service is undergoing profound changes which we believe are essential, and

    17
    some anxieties have arisen from this, but I should like to commend the positive way in which scientists—and all civil servants—have responded to change and to acknowledge the valuable and increasingly efficient service that they provide.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that members of the Standing Committee on the Agriculture Bill—his own colleagues as much as mine—have had a great deal of contact with staff at agricultural research stations and with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and others who represent them? Is he further aware that the picture that we have, if not one of chaos, is one of great and demoralising uncertainty? Are those people to be left to the MAFF accountants, or has the Minister some role in protecting people who have been good and imaginative servants of this country?
    Mr. Luce: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about the standard of service provided by those scientists. This is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but rationalisation is currently taking place in the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which I believe affects the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I assure the hon. Gentleman that everything possible is being done at this stage to find alternative jobs for all the people working at Lasswade.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware of the low morale among the distinguished scientists of the British Geological Survey at Keyworth, many of whom are my constituents? Will he consider whether they should remain under the control of the Natural Environment Research Council, as they believe that in that body science is decreasing but administration is increasing?
    Mr. Luce: I believe that the Civil Service has been losing some good scientists. For that reason, we have introduced a number of changes, including an additional pay allowance for some civil servants of that type so as to give priority to recruitment and retention.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I appreciate the Minister's respect for the civil servants in his charge. Will he ensure that they receive the same respect from other members of the Government, notably the Prime Minister, who does not have a very high regard for civil servants? Does he agree that he has a great responsibility to ensure that the demoralisation of the Civil Service that has occurred in the past few years is ended with respect to pay as well as to other matters?
    Mr. Luce: The right hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge the extent of the change in the Civil Service that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has led and with which all Ministers have co-operated—indeed, advocated—fully. The change has led to vastly improved efficiency through the financial management initiative and various other improvements and efficiency schemes, the results of which are acknowledged by all of my colleagues.

    Work Loads
    Dr. Michael Clarkasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will indicate the change in work load for civil servants between June 1983 and June 1985 and the corresponding increase in productivity between the same two dates.
    Mr. Luce: The annual reports by the Treasury to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on Civil Service manpower reductions, copies of which are in the Library, provide some indication of the effects on Civil Service manpower levels of changes in work load. These show a saving of nearly 20,000 posts between 1 April 1983 and 1 April 1985 from improved efficiency and more streamlined working.
    Dr. Clark: I welcome the increased productivity of Civil Servants. Is it due in part to performance appraisal? Do civil servants in the Department of Education and Science participate in such performance appraisals? Is that not an example to teachers who reject appraisal?
    Mr. Luce: I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the appraisal of teachers, but in the Civil Service we are putting ever more emphasis on performance assessment and on individuals' achievement in the job. The result is much more effective management, and it provides a good example.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about the work load of civil servants in agricultural research and development, does the Minister agree that there has been a 41 per cent. cut in funding of the service in Scotland at the very time when there is an unprecedented need for research into alternative techniques, and that the result is impossible strain on people working in the Department?
    Mr. Luce: The details of that matter are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but there is careful monitoring of the work load on civil servants in all Departments. When a special case is made out—as, for example, with Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue—adjustments can be made.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that the burden on DHSS and Department of Employment staff, especially in the coalfields, leads one to the view that the Government might be asking too much from conscientious officials?
    Mr. Luce: I have no doubt about the remarkable job being done by a pared down Civil Service under considerable pressures because of the efficiency changes. There is constant monitoring of the efforts made by civil servants and their work load, and adjustments can be made.
    Mr. Skinner: Can the Minister explain this bizarre contradiction? He mentioned a reduction of 20,000 in Civil Service manpower. It cost £1·2 million to run 10 Downing street when the Labour Prime Minister left, but it costs £3·8 million in 1984–85? Does he agree that there are more civil servants in 10 Downing street now—some with beards and some probably economists—in direct contradiction of everything for which the Prime Minister stands for everybody else? There is no rate capping at 10 Downing street.
    Mr. Luce: There are civil servants at 10 Downing street, just as there are everywhere else, and they are of the highest calibre. We have rightly reduced Civil Service manpower by 20 per cent. in the past six years. We have asked the Civil Service to become more efficient and more streamlined. It has become more professional.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that if DHSS staff are under pressure—as they are—we need a simpler system? We look forward to hearing a statement on a simpler system later today.
    Mr. Luce: That is why we emphasised the need for more efficient systems and a more streamlined service. That is what we are working towards.
    Dr. McDonald: The Minister's reply to that last question will not do. Is he aware that the Chief Auditor's report shows that one in three supplementary benefit claims is mistakenly administered because of enormous pressures on DHSS staff? Is he further aware that the White Paper, which is shortly to be announced, will put
    20
    enormous pressure on DHSS staff? It will not reduce their work load it will increase it, partly because of administration of what was called the social fund.
    Will the Minister consult his colleagues to ensure that more DHSS staff are recruited to cope with the enormous increase in their work? Will he also ensure that the gap is not made up by increasing temporary staff, in the light of the forthcoming White Paper?
    Mr. Luce: All those questions should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We continually monitor the work load of the Civil Service and take that into account when examining the size of each Department.

Social Security White Paper
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Social Security White Paper which I am publishing today.
In June the Government published a Green Paper which set out in detail the case for change, the Government's objectives for social security and our proposals for achieving them. That Green Paper marked a further stage in the process of review and public consultation which began two years ago in the autumn of 1983.
The Government have four main aims. We want to see a simpler system of social security which provides a better service to the public. By common consent, social security at present is too complex. There are some 30 benefits, each with separate and frequently conflicting rules of entitlement, and supplementary benefit alone requires almost 40,000 staff to administer it.
We want to see more people looking forward to greater independence in retirement. Only half the work force currently have occupational pensions of their own. Our plans extend not only to occupational pensions but, for the first time, provide a new right to personal pensions.
We want a system which is financially secure. As the Government Actuary's report, published with the White Paper, demonstrates, the future cost of the state earnings-related pension scheme will grow substantially—at the same time as the ratio of contributors to pensioners worsens. The Government believe that this problem must be tackled now.
Above all, we want to see more effective help going to those who most need it. More than half of those living on the lowest incomes today are in families with children. This includes both families where the parents are unemployed and low-income working families. Added to this people can still find themselves with less income in work than if they were unemployed. Others can find that a pay rise in work can actually make them worse off. The Government believe that urgent action is necessary to tackle these problems.
One of the major priorities of the Government's proposals is to make better provision for low-income working families with children. Accordingly, we propose to abolish the present family income supplement and to introduce a new benefit, family credit.
Family credit is designed to ensure that families with children will be better off in work. It will be based on take-home or net pay—rather than gross earnings, as with family income supplement—so that the worst effects of the poverty trap are eliminated.
We expect that, compared with family income supplement, family credit will give help to an extra 200,000 families. In other words, twice as many low income families with children will benefit from the new scheme. Family credit will be paid through the pay packet, but it should be emphasised that child benefit will be paid in addition and that that payment will go, as now, direct to the mothers.
We also intend to bring extra support to families who are not in work. This will be achieved through the new income support scheme. A family premium—a special higher level of benefit—will be paid on top of the basic
22
income support rate and on top of the rates for individual children. One of the groups who will most gain from this change will be unemployed families with children.
The income support scheme will replace supplementary benefit. The regular extra payments now made on the basis of detailed individual assessment will be absorbed into the main rates of benefit. As well as a premium for families with children, there will be an additional premium for lone parents and premiums for pensioners and the long-term sick and disabled. At the same time, the capital rule, which at present is an inflexible £3,000 cut off, will be substantiall eased, and we will also ease the earnings rules for lone parents, disabled people and long-term unemployed families.
While the broad pattern of income support will remain as set out in the Green Paper, we have modified our proposals in the light of consultations in two significant ways.
First, the income support rate will still be based on age divisions at 18 and 25 for single people. However, in order to help young families with children in particular, we now intend to have the same rate for all couples over 18.
Secondly, we intend to increase the help for families with more than one disabled child. The Green Paper proposed a double family premium where there was one disabled child or more. We have now decided to pay the extra premium for each disabled child in a household.
This last change will reinforce the special attention which we give to disabled people in our proposals. They will benefit from the premium in income support and from a higher earnings disregard. Overall, disabled people on low incomes will benefit significantly from the proposals.
However well designed the income support scheme may be, it cannot anticipate every special or emergency need. These needs will be dealt with by the social fund.
Instead of the present small universal maternity and death grants—which have both remained at the same value for over 15 years—proper help will be available from the fund to all low income families, not just those on supplementary benefit. The grant for funeral expenses will ensure that the full cost of the funeral can be met, and it is planned that the maternity grant should be set at about £75. Grants will also be given for community care purposes; for example, to help someone leaving a long-stay hospital. In addition, the fund will provide loans to help claimants cope with items other than normal weekly needs.
The main structure of our housing benefit proposals has been acknowledged as an important simplification of the scheme. Treating employed and unemployed people alike, and so getting rid of two separate systems in housing benefit, has been particularly welcomed.
We shall go ahead with this, but I intend, in response to consultations, to make two significant changes to the Green Paper proposals. First, I recognise the anxieties expressed about the effect of a single taper for rent and rates on owner-occupiers, particularly pensioners. I also recognise the concern of local authorities that a single taper would create administrative difficulties for them. We shall therefore keep separate tapers for rent and rates, and this will still be a substantial simplification compared with the six tapers in the present system.
Secondly, although the general power to run local housing benefit schemes will be ended, local authorities will retain their power to grant extra benefit to individual

23
claimants in exceptional circumstances. I have also decided that they should retain their power to give special treatment to war pensioners.
As we made clear in the Green Paper, we believe that the basis on which help is provided with rates needs to be changed. At present, around 7 million householders receive help with some or all of their rates bill, and up to 3 million householders pay no rates. We stand by the principle that everyone should make a contribution towards the cost of his local services. The White Paper therefore reaffirms the proposal that everyone should pay at least 20 per cent. of his rates, but the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be bringing forward shortly on the reform of local taxation may affect the way this contribution is made.
The Government will be carrying forward the proposals for directing widows' benefits to those who need them most and for making maternity allowance more flexible and more closely related to recent work. The new lump sum payment of £1,000 to widows will be tax-free and will be ignored when considering help with funeral expenses. The White Paper also proposes that maternity allowances, like statutory sick pay, should be paid through employers, and a consultation document will be published shortly on this.
On timing, we shall move to the first April uprating in 1987 and at that time we shall introduce other changes like statutory maternity allowance and the new system of help with maternity and funeral costs. The main structural changes to income-related benefits and the other elements of the social fund will be introduced in April 1988. This recognises the arguments of employers and local authorities that the timetable must allow them to make proper preparations.
As far as income-related benefits are concerned, a technical annex is published with the White Paper. The figures show the possible distributional effects of the changes, but these can be no more than illustrative. The actual position at the time of change will depend, among other things, on the exact benefit rates decided for April 1988, and the illustrative figures take no account of any changes resulting from the reform of rates.
As far as pensions policy is concerned, the Government Actuary's report, published with the White Paper, shows that if no action is taken, total pension costs will increase from under £15·5 billion to nearly £49 billion a year provided that the basic pension is uprated by prices. If, as some urge, the basic pension is uprated in line with earnings, the total pension cost increases to nearly £73 billion, which would require a national insurance contribution of 27·5 per cent. The cost of SERPS alone will increase from barely £200 million today to £25·5 billion.
The Government cannot ignore the vast pension bill which is being handed down to our children. In the consultation a number of important organisations recognised that case but argued that, rather than completely replacing SERPS, the costs could be reduced by modifying its provisions. In testing whether a policy of modifying SERPS would be acceptable, the Government have two major objectives. First, we want to see the future cost of SERPS substantially reduced. Secondly, and even more fundamentally, we want to see many more people
24
with their own pension. It is on the basis that both of those objectives can be achieved that the Government are prepared to change the proposals from those put forward in the Green Paper.
The Government propose to modify the scheme so that costs in the next century can be afforded. As with the Green Paper proposals, the Government recognise the particular needs of those nearest retirement. The SERPS changes will not affect anyone retiring this century, nor anyone widowed this century. There will also be a transitional period as the new scheme comes into effect fully in 2010. The basic pension is entirely unaffected by the proposals, and we will continue fully to protect its value.
The changes to SERPS are that occupational schemes contracted out of the state scheme should be responsible for inflation-proofing guaranteed minimum pensions in payment up to 3 per cent. a year; SERPS pensions should be based on a lifetime's earnings, not on the best 20 years as now, but special protection will be built in for women who have breaks in work to bring up families and for those who become disabled and people looking after them; SERPS pensions should be calculated on 20 per cent. of earnings rather than 25 per cent.; and widows and widowers over 65 should be allowed to inherit half their spouse's SERPS rights, rather than the full amount as now.
However, policy on SERPS is only part of the Government's pensions strategy. Our central aim is to provide many more people with their own pension. The White Paper puts forward a six point plan to achieve that. First, a special incentive will be given to encourage the setting up a new occupational pension schemes. That will consist of a reduction, or rebate, on national insurance contributions. An extra 2 per cent. rebate will be added to the existing rebate, making a total incentive of almost 8 per cent. That special rebate will last for five years.
Secondly, for the first time, every employee will be able to take a personal pension, whether or not his employer runs an occupational scheme. The holder of a personal pension will also receive the special national insurance incentive and his contributions will qualify for tax relief.
Thirdly, for the first time, employers will be able to contract out of the state scheme by guaranteeing a level of contribution to an occupational scheme—rather than accept the unlimited liability of promising a "final salary" pension. Those new arrangements will also open the way for more industry-wide schemes.
Fourthly, building societies, banks and unit trusts will be able to provide personal pension savings schemes, as well as group schemes.
Fifthly, all members of occupational pension schemes will in future have the right to pay additional voluntary contributions in order to boost their income in retirement.
Sixthly, people with personal pensions will be fully covered by the new investor protection arrangements to be made for all financial services.
The changes build on top of the reforms introduced by the Social Security Act 1985 which protect the rights of early leavers. The White Paper proposes that that protection will be extended to all members of schemes leaving after two years rather than five years, as now. Anyone changing jobs will be able to transfer all his rights into a personal pension.
The effect of the White Paper proposals will be to direct substantially more help to low income families with

25
children, and to provide more help for disabled people on low incomes. We will take new steps to increase the spread of occupational pensions and give everyone the right to have a personal pension. We will provide a simpler and more effective benefit structure, and have now embarked on the biggest computer project of its kind in Western Europe.
Following the White Paper, the Government will introduce comprehensive legislation early in the new year. The aim will be to achieve a modern social security system directing help where that help is needed.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that, following the humiliating rebuff that he received from the Green Paper consultation, we welcome the fact that the Government have been forced, by near unanimous opposition, to back off from a few of their most damaging original proposals? Is he also aware that 1·75 million more people will lose from this revised package than will gain and that it is much less about reform than about cuts totalling around £750 million? Is he aware that the changes proposed today can be expected to have little impact on the unprecedented 80 to 90 per cent. opposition registered during the consultation period and the near-unanimous hostility of the CBI, the pension and insurance industries, the churches, the women's institutes, the poverty lobby and the Law Society?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, after six months of fudging on the figures and denial of information we know is available, the nation is still not being told in this White Paper the total size of the cuts in this package, or even the actual new benefit rates? Is he aware that to supply illustrative benefit rates only is wholly unacceptable when the Government have no commitment to maintain them, and when all the new benefit levels could, and should, have been set out at 1985 cash levels for the purposes of genuine comparison with the present position? Is he aware that even on his own illustrative figures, 3,800,000 households will lose benefit under these proposals, including 2·25 million pensioners? I do not know why the Secretary of State is shaking his head, because this is shown by his figures.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly 500,000 will lose more than £5 a week and that 1·25 million households, including nearly 500,000 pensioners, will lose more than £3 a week? Is he aware that while we welcome the fact that the Government have been forced to back down from abolishing SERPS by the implacable hostility of everyone except the Institute of Directors and the Monday Club, who are the Secretary of State's sole admirers, we utterly condemn the proposed emasculation of SERPS? That will chop £12 billion, which is almost 50 per cent., off the value of pensions in the year 2033, with accumulative figures in the years up to that date. It will throw millions of elderly people back into means-tested poverty, and it is wholly unnecessary when the Government's pensions Actuary has pronounced that the funding of the existing SERPS scheme is perfectly sound.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the abolition of the best-20-years rule will gravely disadvantage all those who are prevented from achieving a full working life—the long-term unemployed, mothers, the disabled, and the millions who care for the long-term sick and elderly? Is he further aware that his proposal to calculate SERPS pensions as only 20 per cent. of earnings will leave
26
millions of low-paid workers with inadequate pensions? Is he aware that his proposal to cut widow's benefit in half is harsh and unfair, when in a few months' time, the Chancellor will be handing out far bigger sums in tax reliefs to much richer sections of the population?
On housing benefit, while the Secretary of State has been only too anxious to make expedient concessions to pensioner owner occupiers who are Tory voters, is it not sheer political prejudice that he has at the same time actually worsened, compared with the Green Paper, the position of occupational pensioners who rent accomrnodation, by raising the rent taper from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent.? How can he possibly justify requiring all households, including pensioners and the poorest on supplementary benefit, to pay 20 per cent. towards their rates bills? Is he aware that this is the first time ever that any Government, by their own intervention, have forced millions of claimants below the poverty line? Is he aware that this makes nonsense of his claim to be targeting more help on the very poorest? It shows that he is targeting cuts on the very poorest.
On the new so-called income support scheme, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government still intend to refuse to cover mortgage interest payments for families on the dole, which means that there will be much less money for food and other essentials and which in many cases will almost certainly lead to eviction and homelessness.
On the so-called social fund—one of the most objectionable elements of the whole package—why has the Secretary of State, who claims to listen to public opinion, taken no notice of the intense and unanimous opposition to the replacement of grants by means tests and to the halving of the budget for essential household items, which will mean that hundreds of thousands of pensioners and poor families will go without? Why is he insisting upon pushing families below the poverty line—that is what will happen—by recovering social fund payments through deductions from future supplementary benefit?
On family credit, why has the Secretary of State actually increased the taper to 70 per cent. compared with only 50 per cent. for family income supplement, which was bad enough, when this will greatly worsen the poverty trap? Why has he taken no account of the unanimous opposition to paying this new benefit to the man and not the woman with the main responsibility for family care?
Does it not expose the politics of this Government when their much trumpeted review of the welfare state ends with benefit cuts of £750 million for the most needy., when at the same time this same Government have handed out £2 billion to the richest 2 per cent. of the population on over £30,000 a year? Indeed, what justification is there for cuts in national insurance benefits when people have earned their entitlement to full benefit and have a right to it and when any private insurance company which reneged on its obligations—as the Secretary of State is doing—would be taken to court and charged with bad faith and breach of contract?
There is no political mandate for this package. Not one of the Secretary of State's proposals commands national majority support. When this is put to the British people, as it now must be at the next general election, it will be one of the central reasons why this Government are swept from power.
Mr. Fowler: That is a typically foolish response from the hon. Gentleman. It shows that he has mostly not even listened to the statement, and when he has listened to it he has not understood it. The hon. Gentleman has made a series of assertions, most of which are completely inaccurate. Let me try to take the hon. Gentleman through his proposals. I make absolutely no apology for taking consultation seriously. That is why we embarked upon the consultation exercise in 1983 and published a Green Paper. As for cost, the purpose of the exercise is to make better use of resources.
The hon. Gentleman said that the figures are only illustrative. They can, of course, be only illustrative. It is impossible to work out the effect of changes following the uprating in April 1988. One cannot work out the changes. For example, without rates reform one is unable to show the effect upon single pensioners. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) may find that amusing, but rates reform clearly has an effect and impact upon single pensioners. The Green Paper on that will be issued next month, so the hon. Gentleman has only to wait.
As for benefit areas, these proposals will provide more help—not less—for 200,000 low-income families with children and for disabled people. They provide an extension of occupational pensions, a right to personal pensions and a simplification of the system. In the benefit areas themselves, the support for low-income working families with children will increase family credit by an estimated additional £200 million a year at this stage. Changes from supplementary benefit to income support are not intended to reduce help, and there will be no cash losers as a result of that change. the White Paper makes it clear that we expect spending on housing benefits to be reduced by about £450 million, as I said previously, but that must be compared with the areas where increases will take place.
As to modification of SERPS, the hon. Member must look at the Government Actuary's figures at the end of the White Paper. They show that there will be a very substantial increase in the cost of SERPS. On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's own policies—with an earnings uprating in basic pensions—the cost will go up to £73 billion, and that will mean a national insurance contribution of 27·5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to fight the election on issues of this kind. I welcome that challenge, but he will have to produce a policy, and at present the Labour party has none.
Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and the country that this scheme will meet the four-point "window test"—first, that all genuinely needy people will be helped; secondly, that the scheme will not actively discourage persons from standing on their own feet or taking jobs where and when they may be available; thirdly, that the scheme will neither bankrupt the country nor be the despair of future taxpayers; and, forthly, that the desperately needed streamlining of the social security system is being accomplished?
Mr. Fowler: I can satisfy my hon. Friend on those points. The proposals themselves will provide more help, particularly for low-income families and the disabled. If the Leader of the Opposition understood my point, I am sure he would also support the fact that we are tackling not
28
only the unemployment trap but the poverty trap. That is precisely the point that my hon. Friend made. Above all, we are seeking to introduce a modern social security system, which means that the system itself must be simplified.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that the alliance believes that this White Paper contains the same intrinsic flaws as the Green Paper? It does nothing constructive to integrate the taxation system with the benefits system; it does nothing to establish modern, minimum standards-of-living requirements for those on benefit; and it does nothing to remedy the financial plight of elderly pensioners who are relying on supplementary pensions. The White Paper raises the additional spectre of the nightmare of constitutional clashes with the courts by investing in the Secretary of State massive devolved powers that he will arrogate to himself in the way that made Mr. Corton a household name in recent weeks.
Secondly, the lack of an independent tribunal system for the social fund is guaranteed to bring the right hon. Gentleman into conflict with the courts.
I appeal to the Secretary of State: he has announced that some of the changes are not to be introduced until 1988, so he has time. Why does he not use that time to have all-party talks to try to get a consensus on tax, pensions and benefits? I warn him that if the mechanism for paying benefits is not agreed and is not likely to survive an election, we are on course for financial uncertainty and administrative chaos.
Mr. Fowler: I am always an optimist, but, with the best will in the world, it seems to me that all-party talks involving the hon. Member for Oldham, West are unlikely to provide a consensus on social security policy.
I share the aspirations of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on tax and social security. Family credit is an important step in that direction and it will provide more support for the families about which he and I are concerned.
There will be full and comprehensive legislation on our proposals. No previous Government have spent more time consulting the public and seeking to involve the public and organisations in the making of policy. This exercise started in 1983. It is now time not for more consultation, but for action.
Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people throughout the country will welcome the assistance to be given to low-income families and that any a fair-minded person must agree that that as SERPS is not funded—it is a pay-as-you-go scheme—it is ludicrous to think that future taxpayers could suffer the burden if SERPS were not altered. By what amount does my right hon. Friend think that the projected £25 billion cost of SERFS will be reduced by his proposals?
With personal pensions for employees, will there be any change in the national insurance contributions of self-employed people who take out pensions?
Mr. Fowler: There will be no change for the self-employed.
My hon. Friend is right to say that SERFS is a pay-as-you-go scheme and not a funded insurance scheme. The result of the changes that I am proposing will be that by the year 2033 the cost will have come down from a

29
projected £25 billion to about £13 billion. We shall have reduced the emerging costs by about half. We shall also have protected fully the interests of those who are nearer retirement. That is why I said that those who are retiring in this century will not be affected by our changes.
Mrs. Renée Short: The Secretary of State will recall that the Select Committee on Social Services examined the proposals in his Green paper. It is usual for the Chairman of the Select Committee to have a note from the Secretary of State before statements are made, but I have not had such a note.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the number of staff involved in operating the present system. What changes will he made? Will the number of staff be increased or reduced?
Housing benefit and supplementary benefit were introduced by this Government; they are now to be changed radically. What guarantee do we have that the right hon. Gentleman has got it right this time? In view of the criticisms made by many of the witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee, I think that there will be great anxiety about the Government's proposals.
The right hon. Gentleman said that family credit will be provided for the very poor, and he referred to 200,000 families. What about the rest of the very poor? There are more than 3 million unemployed people, many of whom have families. What will be done to help them?
The Secretary of State said that local authorities will be able to give extra housing benefit in certain circumstances. Will he provide the resources for local authorities to give that help? If so, how much will he provide?
I remind the Secretary of State—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Lady is the Chairman of the Select Committee, but it is unfair to treat this as a debate.
Mrs. Short: I have only one more sentence. Mr. Speaker. I remind the Secretary of State that whatever consensus about pensions, housing benefits and the rest existed previously, he has now destroyed it.
Mr. Fowler: Local authorities have always had to provide the resources for local schemes, and that will continue to be the case.
I apologise if no note has reached the hon. Lady as Chairman of the Select Committee. It is on its way to her and I hope that it will arrive in due course.
With the simplification of the system and the computer strategy, there will ultimately be a substantial reduction in staff requirements.
I remind the hon. Lady that the Government have examined an income support scheme in more detail than have any previous Government. The last major review of this sort, back in the 1940s, left that area to one side. We have tried to distinguish between income support, which is the overwhelming support, and the residual support for special needs and such matters, which will be taken up through the social fund.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: As an erstwhile critic of the abolition of SERPS, perhaps I may be forgiven for expressing particular pleasure at the content of one part of my right hon. Friend's statement. Is it not clear from what he has said that, by the various inducements that are to be built up to persuade people to move to occupational pension schemes or individual
30
personal pensions, the time will come in the not-too-distant future when the need for SERPS will have receded to the point where it is no more than a residual scheme? In retrospect, is that not far better than abolition?
As my right hon. Friend has a highly saleable proposition, will he undertake, with, I hope, the support of all his ministerial colleagues, the marketing of the scheme? Some of us feel that it is a step forward in our aim of achieving a property-owning democracy which could be equal to the sale of council houses—and we all know how successful that policy has been.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge and independence on pensions policy I very much respect. My hon. Friend is right. Our proposals will, I hope, mean that it will be the exception for those reaching retirement age not to have a pension of their own. The Government and I are entirely in favour of extending occupational and personal pensions to the maximum number of people. That is what the public want and that is what the Government are about.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I questioned him on his Green Paper, I asked him about the effects of his proposals on the number of poor. I return to that question: if the White Paper is implemented, will there be more poor people or fewer?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House his estimate of the savings or, as we would say, the cuts in public expenditure over the next two years leading up to the general election?
Mr. Fowler: The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is that there wilt be fewer in terms of the poor, and that is the whole purpose behind the proposals that we are setting out. The hon. Gentleman will see from the White Paper that we seek to direct extra help to low-income families—a subject on which the hon. Gentleman has special expertise and knowledge—as well as to disabled people on low incomes. Regarding public spending, as I have said before, the purpose of the exercise is to make better use of resources. The major savings on SERPS are not immediate but will come in the next century. In the immediate future, I repeat that there will be increases in public spending for family credit. There will be equality for income support and supplementary benefit and spending on housing benefit will be reduced.
Mr. Roy Galley: The flexibility that my right hon. Friend showed during the consultation process will be appreciated and welcomed throughout the country. Despite the rumblings from Opposition Members, will he confirm that the majority of low-income families with children will benefit from the proposals? Will he give more details about the modifications to the family credit proposals and will he tell us the facts on which is based the calculation that 200,000 more families will benefit under family credit?
Mr. Fowler: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. In the inquiry leading up to the Green Paper the problems of the poorest—those with the lowest incomes—were clearly defined. During the past 20 years the number of low-income families with children has increased. On the basis of that diagnosis we sought to develop a new policy. Family income supplement was an attempt to deal with the

31
circumstances of the early 1970s, but it did not work and led to the unemployment and poverty traps. That is why we have developed family credit. We have made several changes to family credit such as the change from 13 weeks to five weeks, which will ease the administration of the scheme.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: In view of the difficulties experienced by the disabled housewife and mother, will the Secretary of State reconsider his position on the treatment of the old HNCIB?
Mr. Fowler: I believe that that is dealt with by the severe disablement allowance. However, in addition to our proposals we are carrying out a survey on the needs of disabled people to help Governments to form realistic and new policies for the disabled. I believe that that will be welcomed.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the help with funeral costs available to the low-paid will be in the form of grants rather than loans? Will he also confirm that in setting the premiums for elderly people the personal heating allowance will be taken into account?
Mr. Fowler: I give assurances on both points. The financial resources for heating additions will be in the income support rates. Funeral expenses will be in the form of grants, not loans.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Why does the hon. Gentleman not come clean and admit that the damaging implications of these changes, without proper disclosure of figures, are not likely to be appreciable until after the next general election, which is now nearly certain to happen before April 1987?
Mr. Fowler: I have produced a technical annex that is full of illustrative figures. However, I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that with the best will in the world it is impossible to show with those figures what the exact benefits will be in April 1987.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on BBC radio this morning the Opposition spokesman alleged categorically that the longer-term funding of the present system was no problem, even without increased taxation? Will my right hon. Friend give the lie to that allegation?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West constantly quotes the Government Actuary in support of his case. The hon. Gentleman should read with more care what the Government Actuary said, not only in the current report attached to the White Paper, which I accept the hon. Gentleman did not have the benefit of seeing before he spoke this morning, but in several reports. As the hon. Gentleman knows, SERPS will increase the value of pensions. There will be an increase of about £4 million for pensioners, and the hon. Gentleman should know that the ratio of contributors to the pensions will worsen. The public should understand that under Labour's policy, with the earnings uprating, the total cost of pensions would rise to £73 billion which would mean a national insurance contribution of 27·5 per cent. That is what the Labour party propose.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must take into account the fact that this is a Private Member's day and that there is a further statement to follow. I will allow questions to continue for another 10 minutes, and if hon. Members put their questions briefly, I hope that most will be able to contribute.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, even on his inadequate illustrative figures, 7 million mothers and 12 million children will be worse off because of changes in child benefit, 3·8 million people, including 2 million pensioners, will be worse off because of changes in housing and supplementary benefit, and half the population will be worse off because because of his scheme? Will he tell us the truth? As a result of the White Paper, which brings a black Christmas for claimants, by how much does he intend to cut supplementary benefit before 1988 and by how much does he plan to cut the social security budget after 1988?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member knows that that is not the case. His questions show all the signs of a supplementary question rehearsed before he had the opportunity to read the White Paper.
Mr. Roger Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals on personal pensions will be warmly welcomed by many people who wish to stay in occupational pension schemes but who wish to make additional provision through personal pensions? Will he confirm that the Government will consider the revenue restrictions on additional voluntary contributions so that the full amount—up to 15 per cent. of salary—will will apply to personal pensions contributions.
Mr. Fowler: Yes. In the legislation to follow we seek to provide everyone with the right to a personal pension irrespective of whether they are in a scheme at present. That is an important step forward. Those people will benefit from the special national insurance incentive that I have announced and they will benefit from tax relief. Those points will be welcomed by industry and the public.
Mr. Peter Viggers: I thank my right hon. Friend for responding to representations to preserve the special position of war widows.
Mr. Fowler: We listened to representations, and we believe that it is right to make an exception in the case of war pensions.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State say whether it is the Government's intention to remove the right of students to claim supplementary benefit during the long vacation and their right to claim housing benefit? Does he agree that that would cause them considerable hardship? Will he confirm that it is not the Government's intention to enact the proposals through secondary legislation but that the Government will wait for statutory powers?
Mr. Fowler: As the Green Paper made clear, we want a change in the supplementary benefit arrangements for students. We would prefer a system whereby the support for students goes through grants, not supplementary benefit and housing benefit. We shall try to develop that principle. The hon. Gentleman will see when it is introduced that the legislation is comprehensive and that many of the fears that have been whipped up about it are unfounded.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those who genuinely seek to meet real need effectively with resources will welcome his announcement that maternity and death grants will be made available at realistic levels to those in need, whether in or out of work?
Mr. Fowler: That is right. The maternity grant and the death grant have been unchanged for between 15 and 20 years. That position cannot remotely be defended. We are trying to give realistic and proper help to those who need it for funeral expenses and maternity expenses.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Secretary of State concede that the sort of social security system that will result from his announcement will not be essentially fairer but will be essentially meaner? Does he accept that that will happen because he is trying to redistribute income in our society within definitions of income bands that have been drawn tightly between what he regards as the deserving and the undeserving poor? Do his illustrative figures not show that 2 million pensioners will lose at least £1 a week and that more than 10 per cent. of them will lose more than £5 a week?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is probably quoting from the second set of tables. The basis for those tables is the position before the reform has any effect. It requires a little imagination to understand that there will be an impact on single pensioners. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the system will be less fair. When he has had more time to study the White Paper, he will accept that it will direct help more effectively to those people, notably low-income families, who by any definition are most in need.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: In welcoming extra help for the disabled, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify when families with more than one disabled child can expect to benefit from the proposals?
Mr. Fowler: That part of the proposals will come into effect in April 1988, with the majority of the proposals that we shall introduce and with the new pension arrangements.
Mr. Peter Pike: Does the Secretary of State accept that the changes that he has proposed for SERPS and the guaranteed occupational pension schemes will mean a turning back of the clock for manual workers and a reduction in pension rights? Is not his estimate of a 27·5 per cent. contribution rate blatant scaremongering?
Mr. Fowler: I do not accept that it is blatant scaremongering. I have tried to quote the estimate put forward by the Government Actuary, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West did on the radio this morning. I have not simply pulled the figure out of the air. Does the hon. Gentleman share the aspirations of the Government to extend pensions for individuals through occupational
34
schemes and through personal pensions? The inquiry showed clearly that the majority of people want their own pensions, and that is what we shall try to provide.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State accept that the Select Committee on Social Services, of which I am the longest-serving Conservative Member, is grateful for the fact that he has listened to the views expressed by the thousands of people who communicated with him and to the views of the Select Committee? Will he also accept that his views on SERPS are welcome and the fact that he has amended his original views is widely appreciated? Although I do not wish to be controversial in what I say now, will he tell the House whether he is intending to be a Scrooge or a Father Christmas in his announcement? I believe that he intends to be a Father Christmas.
Mr. Fowler: I cannot win with a comparison of that sort. I am trying to be fair, I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Social Services, which we took fully into account.
Mr. Max Madden: However hard the chairman of the Conservative party tries to dress up the White Paper, will not the British people soon come to see it for what it is: a charter for more cuts, more means testing and more misery? Does the Secretary of State understand that the absence of the Prime Minister and most of his Cabinet colleagues this afternoon shows that they do not regard the White Paper as a new Beveridge plan, but are ashamed of it and do not wish to be associated with it publicly?
Mr. Fowler: I do not see many prominent figures on the Opposition Front Bench. For example, I have no idea who the man with the beard is. The hon. Gentleman had better be a little more cautious in his statements. I am content to allow the public to judge the proposals. They will judge them side by side with the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the abolition of mortgage tax relief. We look forward to the further development of those proposals.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will my right hon. Friend remind us of who is paying for all this? In contrast to the comments made by the Opposition about losers, does he agree that since everyone is a taxpayer—whether through income tax, tax on savings, or VAT—we shall all gain from an improved, streamlined social security system?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. It is also worth remembering that we are talking about a budget of more than £41 billion a year. That is an increase of about 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. More than half of the increase represents a real increase in benefits.

Westland
4·28 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement.
For some months now Westland plc has been in serious financial difficulties and has been seeking an association with an external partner or partners. Negotiations with United Technologies commenced in September 1985 and led to a proposal from Fiat and United Technologies.
At the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the Government agreed that my right hon. Friend should explore the possibility of an alternative association with Aerospatiale, MBB and Agusta becoming available to Westland. An initial proposal emerged and, while it was being produced, the national armaments directors of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy made a recommendation that certain helicopter requirements should in future be met solely from aircraft designed and built in Europe. For the United Kingdom, this recommendation represented a substantial extension to the Government's policy agreed with our European allies in 1978 and of our general approach to defence procurement as set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985".
The existence of the national armaments directors' recommendation was regarded by Westland as a major obstacle to the United Technologies-Fiat option, which it at all times preferred. In view of the urgent necessity for a deal to be concluded quickly, the Government decided that from 13 December they would not be bound by the national armaments directors' recommendation unless Westland had by then received a firm offer from the three European companies, which the board would recommend to its shareholders. The Government's intention was to give time for the completion of a firm offer by the European companies to Westland, but to remove any politically imposed obstacle facing Westland if such an offer were not made in time or was unacceptable to Westland.
At the end of last week British Aerospace announced that it was prepared to provide a quarter of the funds offered by the European consortium. The Governments of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy also agreed, but on an entirely provisional basis, that if the European offer were accepted they would meet their requirements in each of the three main helicopter classes by a single collaborative solution.
Westland plc announced on Friday evening that agreement had been reached in principle whereby United Technologies and Fiat will between them take a minority shareholding in Westland. The view of the board of Westland was that the European offer which was finally received was neither firm enough nor attractive enough for the board to be able to recommend it to its shareholders. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government are not bound by the national armaments directors' recommendation. Full details of the United Technologies-Fiat agreement and of a capital reorganisation of Westland will be announced by the company shortly. As part of the proposed arrangements, Westland will take a licence from the Sikorsky division of United Technologies to manufacture, develop and sell the Blackhawk helicopter.
36
United Technologies was at all times fully aware that there was currently no Ministry of Defence requirement and no provision in the defence budget to buy the Blackhawk helicopter or any other comparable helicopter. Westland has welcomed the agreement as a private sector solution to its present financial difficulties which offers firm prospects of long-term viability and continues the close co-operation between Westland and Sikorsky, which has existed for several decades, and which led to the production under licence of the successful Wessex, Whirlwind and Sea King helicopters. Westland intends to continue with the Anglo-Italian EH101 programme, and to continue to take part in feasibility studies on a developed version of the Al29 and on the NH90. United Technologies has assured Westland that it will continue to maintain a helicopter design and development capability in the United Kingdom.
The Government have ensured that Westland had an alternative European-based offer to consider, but, as a private sector company, it is for Westland to decide the best route to follow to secure its future and that of its employees.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Smith.
Mr. John Smith rose
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Afterwards.
Mr. Skinner: It is very important.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure it is.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State for Defence make his statment, because there are two conflicting views?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. John Smith.
Mr. John Smith: Surely the Secretary of State is not seeking to pretend that there have not been fundamental disagreements, going right to the heart of Government policy, between himself and the Secretary of State for Defence, which have been advertised in the extraordinary public wrangling in recent days? Is there still any concept of collective responsibility in the Government?
Why did the Government refuse to help Westland many months ago when it asked for help? Would it not have been wise to support Britain's only helicopter manufacturer to keep a vital stake in the markets for our industry? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling the House that Britain accepted a recommendation by the national armaments directors only a short time ago, only to have that undertaking unilaterally withdrawn today, apparently only because Westland's board wants to accept the United States' offer? Should our defence policy be decided by the interests of a private sector company?
Is it not revealing that the Secretary of State for Defence—perhaps belatedly, but certainly vigorously—has been fighting for the concept of national interest, while the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been defending the ideologically motivated non-interventionist stance of his party? Is it not the case that, as usually happens when the Prime Minister intervenes, party ideology has once again triumphed over the national interest?
Can the Secretary of State say why we should not believe the Secretary of State for Defence when he tells

37
us that the United States deal will lead to a high-tech British company being reduced to metal bashing, and when he tells us that the deal may prejudice future European defence co-operation, especially on major helicopter projects? Is it not clear that United Technologies wants to find a way into the European market and that, instead of fighting for European industry, the Government are helping to open up American access to it? Does the research and design independence of Westland rest only on the assurance given by United Technologies? Is it not sad that the Government should assist Westland's chairman to find—I quote his recent statement—
"a private sector solution to a private sector problem"
when what is desperately needed is a national solution to a national problem?
Will the Secretary of State intervene to defer a decision for at least a few weeks so that the future of a vital British industry is decided in an atmosphere of calm deliberation, with all the relevant information available, and with proper attention being paid to the national defence and manufacturing interests? Surely, when a great deal of Government money has already been invested in this company, and when thousands of jobs are possibly at stake—let alone the independence of a major British industrial interest—it is not enough for the Government to wash their hands of responsibility and leave a matter of such national consequence to a shareholders' meeting next Thursday, which will take place in the shadow of the threat of liquidation.
Mr. Brittan: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I assure him that my statement was made on behalf of the Government as a whole—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Brittan: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) alleged that the Government had refused help for Westland. The Government have taken the view that it would be far preferable for Westland to be able to find a solution to the problems that it faces without recourse to the taxpayer. That seems to be a reasonable position to take. It is clear that Westland has been able to do so.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is misinformed on the question of the joint recommendation of the national armaments directors, and I am glad to be able to correct him. He was wrong in saying that Britain had accepted the recommendation. The recommendation was placed on the table and was never agreed to by the United Kingdom Government. The fact that it was on the table was, in effect, a pistol at the head of Sikorsky and Westland, preventing them from pursuing their preferred solution. None the less, the Government believed that the inquiries which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was pursuing with a view to obtaining an offer from European countries were such that they should be pursued to the point at which a decision could be taken freely by the company.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is wholly misconceived in his suggestion that ideology is involved. It is not. There is concern for the welfare of Westland and the jobs of the people employed there. The right hon. Gentleman is also wholly misconceived and is picking up a cheap cliché in suggesting that the role of Westland, if the proposed deal
38
goes through, is as he says. United Technologies has assured Westland that it will continue to maintain a helicopter design and development capability in the United Kingdom. What is more, Westland, which has responsibility in difficult circumstances and is under extreme pressure of time, for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not allow at all, believes that the maintenance of such a capability would have been less certain if it had accepted the European consortium's proposals.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a need to convey to the armaments directors of Europe an understanding that Westland is a European helicopter company? Does he also accept that nobody in Europe, particularly the chairman of Aerospatiale, has a right to say that such a company would stop Westland getting contracts in NATO? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to everybody in Europe that, with Sikorsky in the arrangement, it will be the same as it has always been, and that the content of Westland helicopters will remain 90 per cent. European?
Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a gross over-simplification to present the choice as being between Europe and the United States. Westland is deeply involved, and will continue to be involved, with Europe. That has been made abundantly clear. The United States companies are also involved with Europe. As for Aerospatiale, the House will understand why Westland views the remark that has been quoted from the head of that company as having all the objectivity of a remark made by someone who had been doing his best to undermine and supplant the Westland Indian deal.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement will be welcomed. Bearing in mind that the Government's indecision has been al the heart of many of Westland' s long-term problems, what steps is the right hon. and learned Gentleman taking to make sure that the Cabinet is together on the issue and that Westland is not being treated as a ministerial plaything'? Will he confirm that Westland's relationship with Sikorsky is not new, but stretches back over 40 years of fruitful co-operation? Will he also confirm that the EH101 participative deal is not threatened by the statement, but is perhaps enhanced by it? Will he give a clear undertaking to the House that Westland will not be penalised over the deal because it has put some individual Cabinet Ministers' noses out of joint?
Mr. Brittan: Of course the Government would not behave in the irresponsible way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It would be the duty of all members of the Government to ensure that orders were placed for helicopters that were needed, in the right way, irrespective of any such unworthy considerations. The Government are committed to the EH101. Westland is also committed to it, and United Technologies has said that it will not interfere in any way and will assist in its promotion in north America. The president of Agusta, with which EH101 is being developed, confirmed on Saturday that his company will continue to co-operate with Westland on the programme.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is right in the general points that he made. Four of Westland's

39
most successful projects since the war have been developments of original Sikorsky designs—Dragonfly, Wessex, Whirlwind, Sea King and its Army version, the Commando. Westland has sold over 1,200 of those aircraft. Its association with Sikorsky goes back to 1947. The three collaborative projects undertaken with Aerospatiale have been less successful.
Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is great admiration on both sides of the House for Sir John Cuckney, the head of the firm that is now Westland? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that to many of us a more European-oriented solution might have been preferable? Will he assure us that, whether or not that be so, the best helicopters, for both maritime and land use, will be available to our armed forces?
Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the latter is the case. The Government thought it right that the possibility of a European offer should be explored. That is why, at a meeting in my Department with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I readily agreed that he should explore that possibility. It was explored and put forward. The company took the view that it was not sufficiently firm or attractive for it to abandon its previously preferred option. It is worth pointing out that the European possibility arose late in the day, at a time when the company was under great financial pressure.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is it not a strange constitutional position when on Sunday we hear the Secretary of State for Defence giving one view on the radio, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry giving a different view in the House the following day? As someone who has served in the Royal Air Force, I believe that the Secretary of State for Defence was speaking on behalf of the RAF and not on behalf of monetary or ideological considerations.
Mr. Brittan: The House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said and his constitutional analysis. The statement that I am making is on behalf of the Government.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that for months many of us have been trying to remind Her Majesty's Government of the imminent problems of Westland, and in particular of the necessity of meeting air staff target 404 of the Royal Air Force for medium-lift helicopters with a Westland aeroplane? Was it not unrealistic of the Ministry of Defence to imagine that at the llth hour it could impose a shotgun European marriage on Westland, when a European long-term helicopter strategy, though necessary, is bound to take a long time to concert?
Mr. Brittan: I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Is the Secretary of State aware that while he is saying that he is speaking for the Government, the faces on the Government Front Bench show a different view? That shows the disunity of the Government on the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about what the chairman of Westland has said, but how far have the employees and the trade unions
40
been consulted? If that is done, I think he will find that they have a different opinion and that they would support the Secretary of State for Defence for a European solution, because that offers a better long-term future than the American proposal. Is he not aware—perhaps it is because of his lack of knowledge of industry—that the Government are once more selling out for short-term proposals, rather than guaranteeing a long-term future for the British helicopter industry?
Mr. Brittan: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I would hesitate to arbitrate between him and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), but I suspect that when it comes to what the people of Yeovil who work for the firm would prefer, the hon. Member for Yeovil may know more about it.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the thousands of people who work for Westland in and around the west country are much less interested in which is the best solution than in the fact that the company has been saved from receivership? Will he use his influence to ensure that the otherwise friendly relations between Westland and its biggest customer, the Ministry of Defence, are restored and perpetuated?
Mr. Brittan: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said and wish to use my influence in that direction.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is right? For 18 months Government and Opposition Back Benchers, the all-party group, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) have been pleading that action should be taken on the matter. If, for once, the Ministers had listened to the Back Benchers, they would not have been embarrassed, as they are today. Aviation is far too important to the economy of the country for it to be the subject of bickering and delay by Front-Bench spokesmen.
Mr. Brittan: The attempt to make a party issue of the matter by the Opposition Front Bench is also perhaps a reflection of real concern. The question of proper defence procurement is not easy, and it is unfair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for the hon. Gentleman to castigate him in that way, when he has made major efforts and been extremely successful in securing value for money for the armed forces over an emormous range of activities. The House and the country owe him a great debt of gratitude.
Mr. Michael Mates: In the light of the new situation, what is the position on the licence arrangements to build the Blackhawk helicopter already entered into with Shorts? Does that arrangement still exist, and if so, what will be the effect on any arrangements made with Westland in the future?
Mr. Brittan: The arrangement envisaged with Shorts was entirely dependent upon the possibility of the Blackhawk being selected by the Ministry of Defence for AST 404. That has not happened, so that arrangement does not stand.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 19 November I was taken round Westland at Yeovil, as many of my colleagues

41
have been. Those of us from other parts of the country will recognise the seriousness and size of the problem. May I repeat the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? What assurance is there that Sikorsky will keep the high technology and research in Britain? May we have a factual answer?
Mr. Brittan: I have already given the assurance that the hon. Gentleman has asked for, and stated clearly what United Technologies has said. That is absolutely clear. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that if he is talking about alternatives, he might like to ask what assurances he thinks the French, Germans and Italians, all of whom have been regarded as competitors to Westland, would give in the same direction.
Mr. Richard Page: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the American connection with Westland would be a way for the Rolls-Royce turbo meca 322 helicopter engine, currently being developed on the borders of my constituency, to gain access to the large and profitable north American market?
Mr. Brittan: I agree that that is a most attractive prospect.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not ashamed of himself? How can he conclude that the British technology will remain in this country? Does he not realise that Sikorsky could eat Westland for breakfast? That would not be the case with the other Europeans, because none of them is big enough. Surely the Government should have been pushing ahead with our European partners? An example is Agusta, with the EH101, which has been on the go for some time. Who are the patriots in this country? Do they sit on the Government side, or on the Opposition side of the House?
Mr. Brittan: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have overlooked the answer that I gave to the question on the EH101, in which I made it clear that that was going ahead, and that the president of Agusta had said that it was. The NH90 development is still at an early stage. There is no doubt that it will continue to go ahead with United Technologies.
Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the facts about Westland were known months ago? If, at that time, the Europeans, who are now bidding so furiously to get in on the act, had been in, we might have seen a viable alternative. My constituents and Westland have a bird in the hand, and it is worth two in the bush.
Mr. Brittan: I can well understand how my hon. Friend and his constituents feel about the bird in the hand. It is difficult to speculate about what might have happened in other circumstances some months ago, but the plain fact is that the European consortium did not exist, showed no signs of existing and had no interest in the matter until a few weeks ago.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Secretary of State join in the congratulations of most of us on the Opposition Benches to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for trying to get the European option?
Mr. Brittan: I very happily join in the congratulations that the hon. Gentleman, with motives that one might
42
suspect, invites me to confirm. As I said earlier, it was I who readily agreed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence should see whether a European solution was possible. In a short time my right hon. Friend succeeded in bringing together to a remarkable extent an offer which, in the end, the company did not feel was sufficiently firm or attractive. The Government's desire that it should be pursued is evidenced by the fact that it was the Government's decision that my right hon. Friend should pursue it. He achieved a considerable success in a short time, in making it possible for Westland to consider that option.
Mr. Michael Marshall: I understand the complexity of the issue and want to consider carefully what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but does he accept that GEC, as well as British Aerospace, made an offer to bring forward the European proposal? That matter causes some of us concern, as the offer was apparently rejected within 24 hours. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the matter should be looked at with care?
Mr. Brittan: With regard to the speed with which the matter was considered, the broad outline of the proposals being put forward by the Europeans was clear long before last Friday, so it is not entirely accurate to regard the proposal as having been rejected within 24 hours. The proposals put forward on behalf of the European consortium last Friday did not include any participation whatsoever by GEC. The interest on the part of GEC has emerged since then. It is fair to say that although GEC is entitled, even at this late hour, to say what it wishes, at no stage during the well known and well publicised difficulties of Westland did GEC lift a finger to help.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why does the Department of Trade and Industry assume responsibility for the company when it is so reliant on defence procurement? Most of the order book is supplied by the Secretary of State for Defence, in orders that his Department gives to the company. Surely the Ministry of Defence should have been the lead Department in taking decisions, if necessary, on the future of the company. Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recognise that his was the junior role?
Mr. Brittan: The decisions that I have announced were taken collectively. As the hon. Gentleman is interested in responsibility, he will know perfectly well that whereas the Ministry of Defence is a major customer, the Department of Trade and Industry is the sponsoring Department for the aerospace industry. There is nothing new in that.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many with an interest in defence will feel that, for whatever reason, we have ended up with the third best solution? Is it not pretty obvious that the European defence and aviation industries must work out their common aims and co-operate to try to achieve them? I fear that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement is steaming slowly in the wrong direction.
Mr. Brittan: I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for European co-operation. A British company with European competitors was faced with the prospect of extinction, and it had an imperative duty to prevent that. It is because of

43
the shared concern about the merits of European co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State examined whether an alternative was available in the time. The company has taken the view that it was not.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Why was it left to the Secretary of State for Defence to make the suggestion and then pursue it on behalf of the Government if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department is the sponsoring Department not only for the aerospace industry but for British industry as a whole? Why did his Department not come in earlier and explore the possibilities of an alternative to the present solution? What did his Department do during the months when the firm was known to be in difficulties?
Mr. Brittan: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that there was on the table, at an advanced stage of negotiation, a deal that would rescue the company. My Department was intimately involved in removing some of the obstacles that stood in the way of such a rescue. That is the correct role of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: While the European approach undoubtedly offers the best political solution to the problem, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the plight of Westland has been known for many months and that there have been negotiations since June this year to find a partner? The company can hardly be blamed if it has picked up a real offer from the table. It ill behoves the managing director of the company in the United Kingdom that is richest in cash to say now that the deal is not in the interests of the United Kingdom when, with all the cash at its disposal, it could have come in much earlier. At the moment, the plan is for United Technologies and Fiat to take over a 30 per cent. shareholding. What would be Her Majesty's Government's view if that shareholding were to be increased to a majority shareholding?
Mr. Brittan: That is a hypothetical question, which I cannot be expected to answer. I can well understand my hon. Friend's comments about the other matters, although I would not wish to join in them.
Mr. Ken Eastham: Great confusion has been caused today by the Secretary of State's statement and by many of the reports that we have been reading about his colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence. May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that several months ago a deputation met the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement to talk about the serious situation in the industry. He said that there were difficulties sorting out the type of aircraft that was required, yet we learned this weekend that the Ministry of Defence was thinking about placing an order for six helicopters. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Ministry can now place an order for six helicopters? If he cannot, will he ask his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement? What guarantees can be given to the work force, which has had little say in all the paper transactions? Will the Minister go to the trade unions and give them some assurances?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman will know that his last points are matters for the company. He mentioned the proposal that six extra Sea Kings should be purchased by
44
the United Kingdom Government. That order would have been financed out of savings obtained by merging the Al29 mark II and PAH2 light attack helicopters. Such a rationalisation may not be achieved, but, if it can be, Westland's link with Sikorsky and Fiat would not prevent it.
Sir Peter Emery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for at last calling a Member who has many constituents working at Westlands. Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that what matters most is the future of Westlands and the jobs that will be kept there? One of the factors in favour of the Sikorsky deal is the future production of the Blackhawk helicopter. There are rumours in my constituency that Blackhawk production at Yeovil will be below 50 per cent. of total production. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm this rumour?
Mr. Brittan: I cannot confirm that. I can confirm, however, that it is the intention of United Technologies that there should be substantial manufacture of Blackhawk in the United Kingdom. One reason for Westland preferring the Sikorsky deal is that the company compared that firm commitment by United Technologies with an interim provision from the European companies simply for extended subcontracting work in the United Kingdom. There would be more substantial production work with Blackhawk. The possibility of a European helicopter being built in the United Kingdom in the more distant future is very doubtful.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: If there has been a great national interest at stake for the last few months, Westland is the victim, not the villain of the piece, as it has been seeking calm. Indeed, Westland was told by the Government and by other companies in this country to do what happens to turkeys at Christmas. It would have been better if two distinguished members of the Government, one involved in defence and the other in trade and industry, had got together beforehand to discover what was best for Westland. Would it not have been better to launch Westland on the free market, which I believe is an important aspect of the Government's policy?
Mr. Brittan: The matter is being left to the free market. The solution being put forward by Westland involves the private sector rescue of a private sector company, at no cost to the Exchequer. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to explore the possibility of another offer being put to Westland and to allow the company to choose which is best. That is what the Government have done, and that is in line with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark).
Mr. Robert Jackson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend worried about the knock-on effects of the decision, and the way in which it has been presented, on any future European defence collaboration?
Mr. Brittan: That is a matter which the Government must consider. The statement made by the president of Agusta about continued collaboration on the EH101 gives one reason to believe that some things said in the heat of the moment by certain of our European competitors might assume different proportions when matters continue in a more leisurely way.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether United Technologies

45
has agreed to limit its stake in Westlands to 29·9 per cent., or whether that might be a prelude to a full bid in due course? Does he think that it is important that Britain's only helicopter manufacturer should not come under foreign control, with a consequential loss of business in avionics and associated weapons systems?
Mr. Brittan: I am advised that the proposals of Sikorsky and Fiat—one must not forget that two companies are involved, not one—is for an initial 29·9 per cent. stake, with an option to acquire further shares to bring the holding up to 35 or 40 per cent., but not to exceed that figure. The full details for which the Opposition are thirsting will be made public by the company in a few days.
My hon. Friend will be aware that a vast amount of avionics is currently produced by United Kingdom manufacturers for American concerns, and avionics will not be put at risk in the way that my hon. Friend fears.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the control of Westland will remain in the United Kingdom and that there have been no discussions to suggest that it should move elsewhere at a later stage?
Mr. Brittan: That is correct.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that during all the exchanges that have taken place, it has been perfectly clear that the Secretary of State for Defence has disagreed with practically everything that he has been telling us? The Secretary of State for Defence has been more concerned with national issues than has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has been willing to see British interests given over to the United States.
Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have made it clear that it is Westland's view that the proposals which it is now commending to its shareholders are in the company's best interests.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House why the Government rejected approaches from Westland earlier this year? He has not answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). Why must the Government have a public debate between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? When a foreign power takes an interest in a vital, strategic industry in this country the opportunities for exports are reduced, and that must be against the national interests.
Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with my hon. Friend on his general proposition. Westland's view that its prospects for exports are enhanced is a reasonable one, but the House will have to wait to see what happens.
The answer to my hon. Friend's first point is perfectly clear. The Government did not favour a solution to Westland's problem which involved the taxpayer paying for the company.
Mr. John Smith: Why has the Secretary of State waited until almost the last question of the term to reveal the important information that US Technologies has an option to increase its holding to 40 per cent.?
Mr. Brittan: United Technologies.
Mr. Smith: If the Secretary of State is going to make a fuss about getting the tiny details right, perhaps he could have helped us by supplying the information at the outset. The Secretary of State tried to tell the House that there was a small minority interest being taken, but hon. Members have now extracted from him, as one would take a bad tooth from a bad mouth, the fact that the holding could increase to 40 per cent. That is a shocking disclosure, because the Secretary of State knows that 40 per cent. equals control of the company.
Mr. Brittan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have made a worse point, as I did not mention any figures at all until I was asked to do so. I made it clear at that stage that there are many other details in relation to the proposal which will be disclosed by the company in a matter of days. That is an entirely reasonable course of action.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that throughout the whole series of questions and answers the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not even consult the Secretary of State for Defence—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Even if that is true it is nothing to do with me.
Mr. Skinner: I know that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Skinner: I was just giving a little background, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is quite clear. It is very rare that Ministers come along giving opposite points of view, but in this case it is clear that they do not even speak to each other. As there are clearly two points of view, should not the Secretary of State for Defence have the chance to put the alternative point of view?
Mr. Speaker: Order.

Private Notice Questions
5·11 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your advice. I had understood that a private notice question was a private matter and not for public dissemination. Was it in order for the Labour Front Bench spokesman to make it known in the press last Saturday that he intended to put down a private notice question, and for the fact and perhaps some of the text of the question to be revealed in the Press Association tapes this morning?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He is still wet behind the ears.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order is for me, not for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
I frequently read in the press at weekends that a question is to be asked about a particular matter in Parliament the following week. I think that that is perfectly in order, but it is not in order to refer to a private notice question which may or may not have been sent in.

Ministerial Statements
5.12 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have your advice on what seems to be a genuine constitutional predicament?
With regard to today's statement, there are two Departments with clear responsibilities. Until now, all statements on the subject in question have been made by the Secretary of State for Defence. Today, however, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has told the House that he has taken over responsibility at the Dispatch Box as the head of the sponsoring Department, but that any questions related to defence arising from his statement have to be referred to the Secretary of State for Defence. As the Secretary of State for Defence, who has dismissed the agreement as "metal-bashing", has had to sit beside his colleague in silence and humiliation and listen to an announcement that an agreement by national armaments directors—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a point of order for me?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been told that national armaments directors of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy have agreed that certain helicopter requirements should in future be met solely from aircraft designed and built in Europe. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that that agreement
"represented a substantial extension to the Government's policy … and of our general approach to defence procurement as set out in the 1985 Statement on the Defence Estimates".
As that agreement has apparently been set aside purely at the request of the Westland board, would it not be appropriate now to have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on the defence aspects of the matter?
Mr. Speaker: It might have been more appropriate if the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) had been called last from the Front Bench. None of that is a matter for me.

Questions to Ministers
5·14 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter that I wish to raise is not a matter of Members' interests, although it may at first seem to be so. It relates to the rights of Members to table questions. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have an interest in defence contracts, and
48
particularly in excess profits by defence contractors. Accordingly, I attempted to table a series of questions this morning. One of them was—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if he goes to the Table Office and seeks advice it is not in order for him to raise in the Chamber with me the questions that he raised there.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker—I have also taken advice on this—you have ultimate responsibility for the decisions of the Table Office.
Mr. Speaker: I do not answer for these matters in the Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise matters of this kind with me, he should do so in the normal way. I was not present at the discussions and I cannot possibly say what went on. As the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I can tell him that I now know that he spent some time in the Table Office this morning discussing whether he could put down certain questions, but that is all that I know.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: There are many precedents in the House of Members coming to the Chamber to press the case for questions which they were refused the right to table, by the Table Office. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the implications of certain questions that I was not allowed to table. My point of order is not long. I wonder whether you might care—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly expert in procedural matters. He should know that the matter that he raises is firmly pointed to in "Erskine May" as follows:
"When a question has been refused and the Member concerned wishes to make representations to the Speaker on the matter, the practice is for these to be made privately to the Speaker and not raised by way of a point of order in the House."

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of the recommendations of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council concerning higher education in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Scientific Research
5·15 pm
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I beg to move,
That this House acknowledges that the prosperity of Britain in a competitive world depends upon keeping pace with technology in a variety of fields, that the achievement of this goal requires the injection of greater funds into the scientific infrastructure comprising universities, research councils, laboratories and polytechnics, that a closer interface between universities and industries is fundamental to the evolution of a future industrial strategy, and that international collaboration for major research projects is essential to further the development of expensive basic research; that, while welcoming the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in associating Britain, France and Italy in the ISIS neutron spallation source facilities, Eureka and other ventures, nevertheless would regret any steps taken to lower the United Kingdom subscription to the high energy particle physics facility CERN; acknowledges that only the maintenance of an environment for successful research in the United Kingdom will prevent the migration abroad of the ablest scientists and innovators; considers that a mechanism must be found for harnessing for civil use the fruits of defence research; and concludes that, while the private sector should be encouraged to invest more funds in research and development, there remains a continuing need for further public funds to maintain the thrust of basic, strategic and applied research in a number of fields such as microelectronics, biotechnology, information technology and robotics, because to a very large extent the employment and standard of living of tomorrow depends upon the research undertaken by the community today.
It is becoming customary for the House, even after two major statements, further to curtail the time left to debate a private Member's motion. On this occasion, the time has been cut down to one hour and 45 minutes. I hope that when the subject of this debate is discussed in the future adequate time will be provided by the Government to cover the points that Members would have liked to raise today.
Paragraph 26 of the Select Committee report on the future of the science budget shows the comparative performance of various industrial states in relation to Government funding for research and development. The performance of the United Kingdom is not encouraging. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to provide clarification today. In volume II, paragraph 40, Sir David Phillips stated in evidence that he was "instituting a review of the way in which particular branches of science are funded in this country and in Germany, France, Netherlands, the United States and Japan. This review … is being conducted by the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University".
Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us the outcome of that review?
International figures reflect not just inadequate funding but a shortage of scientific staff. I illustrate the point by giving the number of scientists and engineers in research and development in four major countries. In the United States, the figure is 660,700 or 0·62 per cent. of the labour force. In Japan it is 463,062 or 0·76 per cent. of the labour force. In West Germany it is 121,978 or 0·41 per cent. of the labour force. In the United Kingdom, it is even lower, at 86,500 or 0·33 per cent. of the labour force. Science and technology cannot possibly advance adequately if there are insufficient engineers and scientists to see that the advances are made.
The performance figures also reflect a paucity of technological management. This was highlighted by Sir Edwin Nixon, chairman of IBM (UK), in the Financial Times recently. He said:
50
"The country could improve its trade performance by means of better industrial management, by more appropriate education programmes, by improving work practices and a better application of technology in industry."
According to a recent report, local firms are reluctant to use information technology such as electronic mail. A recent National Economic Development Office report entitled "Strategy for construction and R and D" criticised the construction industry for its inadequate use of technical information and the inadequate funding of research and development. We should bear in mind the answer of Sir David Phillips which appears in the second volume, paragraph 31 of the report. He said:
"I … commend to you the over-riding importance of deciding whether or not the future of this country requires a declining investment in science, basic, strategic and applied, and science education, or whether it does not need a different approach."
To summarise the three points I have made, we fall down on an international comparison of investment in the basic sciences. We fall down on the shortage of scientists and engineers compared with some of the leading industrial states. Technological management in the United Kingdom is inadequate and this caused the chairman of IBM UK to make the cryptic remarks which appeared recently in the Financial Times.
International collaboration is essential for large research projects. I have discovered that as the European market is conterminous but not integrated, collaboration is fundamental both to smooth frontiers and to match the achievements of the United States which has formed a highly integrated collection of states within a customs union. It is surprising when the population figures are compared between the EC, the United States and Japan, the EEC represents the greatest industrial block in size but it has the least favourable performance on high technology. The EC, if one takes the 12 states, has a population of 320 million, the United States a population of 237 million and Japan 120 million, yet it would appear that the success of the world market in technology is in reverse order. Withdrawal from commitments without agreement would reduce Britain's triple A rating as a research partner in international projects. International collaboration in high energy particle physics is the only way of remaining in this branch of science thus the migration of physicists can be expected as Britain has signalled its departure from the leading role it has chosen in the centre of excellence at Geneva.
It is significant that, while the ABRC has agreed with Kendrew to a 25 per cent. cut in the CERN subscription from 1989, it has not prompted a similar response from any other member state, they have decided to go ahead in full with their subscription rates. The threatened reduction of interest in CERN, together with the abandonment of UNESCO and the belated support for the deep ocean drilling programme, are not likely to commend the foresight of the United Kingdom negotiators. It is incredible that with the new neutron spallation source in Oxfordshire and the synchrotron radiation source in Cheshire together with the impressive United Kingdom performance in CERN that this time has been chosen to diminish our subscriptions to CERN and specially considering the opportunities arising out of the strategic defence initiative. This technology includes the building and operation of particle accelerators and the production and control of high energy particle beams. Surely, with the

51
SDI appearing on the horizon the Government should be prepared to go ahead with the full subscription rates beyond 1989.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if particle physics figures too large in the present allocation for science the answer may be not to reduce the allocation for high energy particle physics but rather to increase the allocation for science in general?
Mr. Skeet: Yes, but when one has a centre of excellence where a great deal of work has been put in by the engineers and scientists of the united Kingdom, and where one has an advantage on the world stage, it is futile to throw it away.
The Department of Education and Science has recently been apprised by the ABRC of the serious brain drain of outstanding talent among chemists and biochemists. It is inconceivable that this occasion should be chosen to disrupt the operations of the best example of European co-operation and thus accelerate this brain drain. The miners' strike cost this country no less than £5 billion. It would require but a tiny fraction of that sum to support this and many other fruitful branches of science.
There are numerous examples of other collaborative efforts and these will include CERN. There are 13 European nations associated with CERN and it is financed in the United Kingdom through SERC. Eleven countries are associated with the European Space Agency, which is funded through the MOD, the DTI and SERC. The ISIS neutron spallation source in Chiltern, Oxfordshire involves the United Kingdom, France and Italy. The European incoherent scatter facility is situated in Norway and involves that country, Sweden, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom. The EUREKA programme involves 18 European nations and concentrates on information technology telecommunications, robotics, materials, biotechnology, marine technology and a number of other disciplines. Finally, Esprit is funded by the Commission itself.
When one considers the state of our technology in the United Kingdom one would like to think that of the 10 projects which have been set forth in the EUREKA programme we in the United Kingdom have more than three places in consortia. That is, first, in the creation of European standards for personal educational microcomputers, secondly in high performance cutting and welding lasers and thirdly in medical diagnostic kits for certain social diseases. If the United Kingdom had the ball more at its feet it would have got more out of the EUREKA programme—although I agree that the programme is largely pushed by the French.
European collaboration is significant and important but industrial collaboration with the universities' laboratories and polytechnics—the scientific infrastructure of this country—is necessary to secure the objectives of improved living standards and fuller employment. There is a trend to encourage closer collaboration between the 45 universities of the United Kingdom and industry rather than to persist with the development of research institutions which were, and will continue to be the traditional practice of the Agriculture and Food Research Council and NERC but to a lesser extent the Medical Research Council.
52
The argument for this policy has been portrayed by Professor Sir John Kingman, former chairman of SERC. He said:
"We believe that research activity on the whole is best carried out in universities where it can influence the teaching activities and more generally the spirit of research can communicate itself to the younger generation."
I fully agree with that. It will involve further rationalisation of research councils. Who will pay for the restructuring which is recognised as being in the interest of universities? I agree with the report that restructuring does not represent the proper use of the science budget. The money required could be used for other branches of science.
The close interface between universities and industry is best demonstrated by the development of science parks in the United Kingdom. There are now 30 and the leading example is perhaps the science park at Cambridge. Initiatives at universities with an eye to later commercial advantage are illustrated by work on the optic computer at the Heriot-Watt university at Edinburgh. The additional revenue thus secured is not sufficient, however, to make up for the loss of grant during the past five years. We also have the Prudential-backed South Bank technopark at the South Bank polytechnic, which is designed to accommodate some 100 technology companies and is due to come into operation in 1987. The Government's innovation grants have helped in that connection.
The House has heard two statements today. One concerned the future of social security and the other concerned the future of a company which might be a key industry in the United Kingdom. These will illustrate the point I am about to make. National investment in research and development is utterly insufficient. Dr. Roberts, the independent member of the ABRC, said at paragraph 32 in the second volume of the report:
"I do not believe we will improve the economic strength of this country by spending more on social security".
Having read that part of the report with some care, I thought that it was a good idea to examine the public expenditure plans for 1985–86. Expenditure on health and personal social services works out at £16·4 billion and expenditure on social security totals £40 billion. Added together, they represent 42 per cent. of total public expenditure—£134 billion—or 47 per cent. of the revised figure. Wealth-creating expenditure amounts to only £21 billion, or 16 per cent.
Research and development for 1986–87 reaches only £4·6 billion. It is a minuscule sum, and half of that will go on defence research and development. We hope to expand the economy and provide employment for future generations. To achieve that we must spend a certain amount on social security but we are certainly not spending enough on the technological industries that will provide the jobs of tomorrow and the money to pay for them.
Civil research and development is accorded a low rating in the United Kingdom because of a paucity of funds. Expenditure on almost everything continues to expand—energy, agriculture, social services and defence—but expenditure on research has been level funded. The only tribute that I can pay to my right hon. Friend the Minister is that he made a little extra money become available in the autumn statement for science. I dare say that he gave ABRC all that it asked for. It is not asking for more, but it is obvious to anybody who studies this subject that the United Kingdom requires much more than appears to be

53
the case. The cost of equipment has advanced ahead of the rate of inflation and commissions from Government Departments have fallen drastically.
The unfortunate repercussions have fallen on the science budget as illustrated by Sir David Phillips saying at paragraph 37 of the report that genetic engineering and protein engineering depend on the purchase of expensive materials such as enzymes and radio-isotopes. It has been reckoned that the expenses of an individual researcher used to amount to about £1,000 whereas now he requires between £7,000 and £8,000. The Government have not compensated for that increase adequately.
I strongly believe that private industry could do more. It is in industry's interests to participate, but its contribution varies from industry to industry. The Green Paper admits that no substantial part of established public funding responsibilities can be substituted by private finance. Some industries such as the pharmaceutical industry have always made a significant contribution. It is agreeable to find that the Wellcome Trust proposes to double its support for medical research in Britain from £22 million to £45 million. Other companies and enterprises may suggest what can be done, but much research is abstract and will not receive any immediate payment, so it is unlikely to be supported entirely by the private sector.
Expenditure on defence research and development is significant. Out of total research and development expenditure of £4·6 billion in 1986–87, civil research represents £2·2 billion and defence research and development £2·3 billion. The money spent on defence research and development has climbed by 22 per cent. between 1972 and 1983, but expenditure on civil research and development rose by only 2 per cent. in real terms over the same period. That is all the more extraordinary since defence activities account for only a small part of British exports—about 3 per cent. Defence research and development rarely stimulates a commercial advance. Industry's financing of research and development rose by only 0·9 per cent. in Britain between 1967 and 1982 whereas it rose by roughly 4 per cent. in the United States, 5·9 per cent. in France and the Federal Republic of Germany and by 9·8 per cent. in Japan.
Professor Sir John Kingman, who is now the Vice Chancellor of Bristol university, said:
"we ought either to shift the balance, or alternatively find a mechanism by which defence investment can have more interconnection with the civil and in particular academic research."
We have made a move in this direction in the Alvey programme, associating the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and SERC. Surely more could be done in that regard. In paragraph 15 of the report, Sir David Phillips said:
"In the current round of the annual review of Government research and development … an attempt is made to break down the Ministry of Defence expenditure."
What is the Ministry of Defence's expenditure? Has the breakdown been done? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will let me know and also say what part of the expenditure goes on "research". It will then be possible to calculate how much can be applied to civilian research. I suspect that well below 10 per cent. is spent on research and that therefore the size of the spin-offs is limited. I bend to my hon. Friend's further knowledge and hope that he will be able to give an answer.
I conclude with a few words about the structural position. I am bearing in mind that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, which must end at 7
54
o'clock. I recommend the merger of the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development and the ABRC. There can be no justification for having two bodies. I appreciate the skills in ACARD, but all the services could be discharged by the ABRC, into which it could merge.
Better co-ordination between the research councils and the chief scientists of the Ministries is required. Although associated on the ABRC it has been the withdrawal of the departmental commissionings that has caused disruption to research councils and universities in recent years. If there were more co-ordination and if the left hand knew more about what the right hand was doing the research councils would not be in such difficulties. NERC, it seems, may be suffering administrative rather than scientific problems.
We are in an age of mergers and I recommend another—between the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body into a new higher education council which deals with polytechnics. There is a need for such a council, which could eradicate the difference between the two sectors. The polytechnics are making a big mark in their contribution to industry. I do not want polytechnics to be at a disadvantage compared with the universities which have that traditional role.
The Department of Education and Science has other responsibilities than education. It has to look after youth and, of course, science. Its performance in science matters has not been satisfactory in the last few years.
We should consider establishing a new structure which is accountable for science. That would give it the prominence that it deserves in a modern industrial state. It would signal a new approach by Government and ensure that firms were structured to withstand competitive forces.
Britain is only at the beginning of change. I do not go as far as to suggest that we should have a Ministry for science. However, I suggest that that should be considered. We are discussing a major subject—the future of science; the future of our exports and employment. All that is based on the technology discovered today and implernented by industry tomorrow. That technology will do much to guarantee jobs and a good standard of living, yet today's debate, crucial as it is, is crammed into such a short period. It must end in one and a quarter hours.
5.42 pm
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I shall make a brief intervention because this is a short, but important, debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) on giving the House the opportunity to debate this subject. It is notable, but not surprising, that he chose this subject. The House and the country will be grateful to him.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) to the Front Bench. We are pleased to see him and look forward to great things from him, particularly in science matters.
Most hon. Members will agree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North about the importance of science. We share his disappointment, and that of one committee after another, about low expenditure on basic and applied scientific research in the United Kingdom. We are particularly weak in civil research and development. Much of the public funding of research and development is on defence. There is wide agreement that something should

55
be done about that, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North on his suggestions for tackling the problems.
It is a pity that the funds bandied around in takeover bids in the City and the spare cash on the capital market are not being channelled into companies' research and development programmes.
I have a suggestion that might spotlight the problem. We should make it a statutory requirement for all companies to publish the amount that they spend on research and development and the percentage of sales and turnover that it represents. That would help hon. Members and others who are interested to analyse the amount of research and development that is taking place and to put pressure on companies to spend more on scientific developments.
The Government's expenditure pattern is low compared with that of other countries in terms of percentage of gross domestic product per head of population. It is worrying that it is only one side of the analysis. Percentage of GDP is one thing, but we must also take into account the size of GDP. Our GDP is lower than that of most of our competitors, such as Japan, Germany and America. That means that in volume terms the comparison is even worse. The comparison between the United Kingdom and our major industrial competitors, such as Japan, West Germany, and other European countries is deeply disturbing.
We are particularly worried about what the Government are spending. The autumn statement gave the new science budget allocations of £614 million for 1986–87, £628 million for 1987–88 and £647 million for 1988–89. The figures represent an increase of about £15 million in 1986–87 and a further £15 million in 1987–88 and in 1988–89.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Far from the amount spent on science research and development reflecting the total gross domestic product, the reverse is true. If we want to keep in the forefront of nations, we should be spending a higher proportion of our GDP on research and development instead of spending only that which seems reasonable compared with expenditure by other countries.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: I agree.
The figures that I mentioned amount to a cash increase of 7·5 per cent. which, on the basis of the Treasury's lower inflation forecasts, is designed to maintain level funding in real terms over the next few years.
The increased funding amounts only to what the Advisory Body for Research Councils calculates as the minimum required. Taking account of past erosion and future costs of the research councils, the ABRC recommends total increases of £15 million, £30 million and £40 million—a total of £85 million. That would allow for a 1 per cent. per annum real growth in the science budget over the next three years. That modest and minimal claim is substantially less than that suggested by the Education, Science and Arts Committee report, "The Future of the Science Budget", which recommends a 3 per cent. increase. Those are modest sums compared with what many hon. Members would like to see.
The only future for Britain is one in which we have highly professional, high technology-based industry and commerce with a highly educated and qualified work
56
force, in which we have high value added, in which we are beating our competitors and in which we are carrying out research across the board on the frontiers of science.
It is palpably obvious that major countries, such as America, Japan, West Germany, France and Italy, are overtaking us substantially in one sphere after another. Unless the Government give a lead with budgets, industry will not be prepared to respond with civil research and development. Therefore, the Government have an enormous responsibility to do something about the current position.
In addition, we all want to see some of the money that the Government spend on defence research and development having a spin-off in the commercial sphere. As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North said, we need a much bigger spin-off than we get at present. Will the Government consider establishing a company, possibly under the British Technology Group, to promote civilian exploitation of defence research and development? It may be difficult, for official secrets reasons, to exploit some of the research and development in the defence sphere, but if there were a much better mechanism, under the umbrella of the British Technology Group, it might be possible for much more to be done.
Mr. Jackson rose—
Mr. Wrigglesworth: I have only a few minutes. I prefer to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his points during his own speech.
The Government can do a number of things, and I have mentioned some of them. I agree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North about merging the ABRC and the ACARD and having a council for science policy. There is a great deal to commend that and a wide spectrum of opinion would be in favour of it. We can improve the operation of the Alvey project by increasing its size and possibly making small firms contribute only 10 per cent. towards their projects in order to give them an advantage. The Government should consider the various suggestions that have been made.
At the end of the day it comes back to a matter of political will. What vision do the Government have of the future of our industry and technology? What vision do they have for Britain's future? Do they see Britain having a low-paid, low-skilled economy, or do they see it as a country in which we carry on the professional and academic excellence of the past? Over the past few years there have been precious few signs, from the amount of money that the Government have contributed to scientific research and development, that they are intent on making Britain one of the world leaders in science and technology. I hope that the Minister will reassure not only hon. Members but the scientific community outside and industry generally that the Government will move much more strongly in that direction in future.
5·53 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) on being successful in the ballot—something that in 26 years I have never succeeded in doing—and on picking a topic of major importance which is much greater than one would believe from the 0·2 per cent. of the Back Benchers of the House of Commons who are present. That is particularly unfortunate.

57
As this is meant to be a debate, I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). He referred specifically to the need to have industry and commerce record on their annual balance sheets what they spend on research and development, either as a percentage of their turnover or the actual amount. He obviously missed a question that I put down to my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology the other day in which I urged that that should be legally enforceable, as it is in a number of American and European states. I am afraid that I got a pretty dusty answer, so perhaps we can unite to try to ensure that that is done. After all, it is a simple matter. It would be helpful to everybody and keep industry more on its toes.
This debate is not just an academic exercise; it is about the creation of wealth—so that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services can come to the Dispatch Box and announce the giving away of the tens of billions of pounds which are necessary in social welfare today. Unless industry can create the necessary wealth, all that falls to the ground. It is imperative that the Government understand that the future of Britain's industrial and manufacturing base can be sustained, and the base itself will grow only, if pure research and industrial research and the development of that research are not just helped but are positively assisted and encouraged by the Government so as to ensure that industry places greater emphasis on it. Research needs a lead and an incentive from the Government and from each Department in individual sectors in their sponsorship in the different areas of industry.
I wish that I could tell the House that Britain has a fine record in that area, but exactly the opposite is the case. In the financial year 1984–85 the United States spent over $110 billion on research and development—$66 billion coming from the private sector and $44 billion from Government. Europe spent only $50 billion—S25 billion coming from Governments and $25 billion from industry. Germany, France and the United Kingdom made up 83 per cent. Britain's paltry contribution was about $15·8 billion—$9·1 billion coming from the private sector. But Japan spent $24 billion—$18 billion from the private sector and $6 billion from Government. When we consider expenditure per capita, the British and European position becomes much worse. America spends $535 per head, Japan $351 per head, Europe $227 per head—and it is much less in the United Kingdom.
The trend is terrifying. Britain is getting worse. If one takes 1975 as the base of 100, Europe progresses between 1975 and 1983 from 100 to 128 and the United States from 100 to 141, and Japan nearly doubles from 100 to 183. How can we possibly expect to stay in the lead and to be able to create the industrial strength that we want for industry if the contributions of Government and industry are falling so far behind? I am not a pure monetarist. That is why I am not sitting on the Treasury Bench. But this is an area outside monetarism where Governments should be giving a lead and where there is an absolute demand.
Surely we should be able to compete with what the French are doing. However, the New Scientist on 18 October said:
"As the French government begins to prepare for a general election … it remains committed to a significant increase in funding for research and development … announced that spending by governmentt departmens on R and D will reach a
58
total of 42·5 billion francs. With an anticipated inflation rate of 4 per cent., this translates into a planned real growth of 4·2 per cent.—and compares with the zero growth that is being imposed on public spending … the government is proposing that tax credits on the new research and development efforts of industrial companies be raised from 25 to 50 per cent.
Why can we not emulate that? In real terms, research and development in Britain is on a downward trend. The Government must get their priorities right. It is little use the Exchequer providing hundreds of millions of pounds to train and retrain the unemployed if industry is contracting and therefore unable to provide the jobs. Surely the need for industrial expansion is accepted by everyone, including the Government.
The Government should have industrial expansion as one of their major objectives in dealing with unemployment. That is where the new jobs can be provided. They will be provided not by attempting to regenerate old and dying industries, but by the new industries, the new technologies, the new developments and the new sciences—those areas in which, I am sorry to say, we are too often overtaken by Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong and America. It will only be through new technology and discovery, with proper development, that jobs will be created.
The Government must not turn away from supporting basic research which, on the whole, they support quite well. We must ensure that we put our knowledge to use in industry more quickly than other countries that make use of our technology and expertise through our brain drain. We must increase our efforts in engineering research. The link between fundamental scientific research and its application in engineering and marketing is essential. Our industrial development has so often been behind our inventions.
There is a real need for the Department of Education and Science to co-operate with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that our tax structure provides incentives for industrial development. I do not necessarily mean providing money from the taxpayer, but allowing industry to use its money for such development through a tax policy designed to encourage such use.
In September, I was elected chairman of the Science and technology committee of the North Atlantic Assembly—a group of 16 nations working in concert on science and technology. During its last meeting, resolutions were passed to attempt to deal with the problems of technological transfer and the duplication of expenditure on science and technology within the Alliance. The total amount spent within the Alliance is about $200 billion per annum. A conservative estimate is that between 18 and 30 per cent. of that expenditure is duplicated. Why can we not get together to try to cut the amount of duplication? I accept that duplication cannot be eradicated altogether because there will be competition and areas where it is impossible to co-operate. However, if we could cut duplication by just 25 per cent., the minimum we would obtain for additional expenditure on research and development would be $16 billion. Let us think what that would mean in real terms. Let us think what that would mean in advancement in research and development within industry.
Has the Minister considered the resolutions passed by the Alliance? They were:

59
"to consider the added expense, in terms of effort and resources, of the disagreement on technology transfer policies, and to assess the savings and benefits of reaching a compromise on these policies".
Have we done that? If not, why not? They continued:
"to consult with the United States in a reappraisal of the Military Critical Technologies List in order to decrease restrictions on technologies which are already available outside the United States"—
but which, of course, are actually still restricted by the United States, which is absolute nonsense—
"to consider the creation, in each Alliance nation, of a Technology Transfer Bureau to assume overall responsibility for dealing with high-technology exports, and to report their views to the Assembly."
The Alliance wants to achieve greater co-operation between its member nations.
Those are ordinary, sensible and businesslike recommendations. Perhaps they are too ordinary and too businesslike, but they should be taken up by the Government. I hope that the Minister will assure me that that will happen.
Today saw the launching of Industry Year 1986. Five Ministers of the Crown, together with a number of Members of Parliament—some of whom are in the Chamber—spoke about the need for the creation of growth. That was an excellent and necessary thing to do. However, in pushing forward the need for Industry Year, no policy is more important than trying to move our young people towards the realisation that within industry science, technology and research are just as important as they are in universities and that they exist for the creation of wealth for the whole nation. That is the note on which I began my speech, and that is the only way that the need for research and development can be sold to the nation.
6·7 pm
Dr. M. S. Miller: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) on his choice of subject for the debate. It is a matter of extreme importance to the nation. I agree not only with the hon. Gentleman but with the hon. Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). This is a matter on which we are all united.
I have only one small quarrel with the terms of the motion which is where it states:
"a mechanism must be found for harnessing for civil use the fruits of defence research."
I would go further than that and suggest that we should spend more on civil research and allow some of that to spin off to defence. The proportion of our expenditure on research and development that is devoted to defence is far too high. Although the Secretary of State for Education and Science says that Britain compares reasonably favourably with other countries in research and development, he forgets to mention that a high proportion of that expenditure is devoted to defence.
I especially agree with the part of the motion that states:
"the employment and standard of living of tomorrow depends upon the research undertaken by the community today."
I was in Italy earlier this year—in, of all places, Palermo—and all the lamp standards carried a notice stating:
"In affare, non vincerete le battiglie di domani con la technologia di ieri."
That means
"In business matters we do not win the battles of tomorrow with the technology of yesterday."
60
That is exactly what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North said.
Many hon. Members have visited the Secretary of State for Education and Science and have received the same comment, that we are now a poor nation and cannot therefore be expected to spend so much on research and development, but it is the other way round—the poorer we become, the more we must spend to return to our past position. We should not be cheese-paring, because by spending money on scientific research we are planting the seedcorn for the future. That is important, and the Secretary of State's attitude is short-sighted.
It is not a question of undertaking research only where scientific development can be applied. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that we should consider not only applied science but basic science. We were strong on basic science, which involves research and development which at the time does not seem to have an application. It is also excellent to undertake research and development for application, but it is necessary to do scientific research, even if one does not see the fruits of it immediately. For that reason, we must be involved in particle physics. The Germans are good at it, and we should play a bigger part in CERN. We have fallen behind the United States of America, the USSR, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan and France, and we may even be behind South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. I hope not.
Last week the London Standard published a large paragraph on "Medical research sacrificed". The vice chancellor of London university, Lord Flowers, talking about cuts in General Medical Council expenditure, said:
"if spending cuts continue Britain will no longer be able to maintain acceptable standards of teaching for its doctors … Research is being sacrificed in order to protect patient care and teaching."
By that he means that patient care and teaching cost so much that the Government do not believe that they can afford to spend any more on research and development. In other words, the necessity to treat patients is being made the enemy of more research. We should not accept that.
That is having a disastrous effect on our young academics and our universities. I have an interest, as I have a son who is a science university lecturer. He cannot obtain a permanent post, and he will undoubtedly go abroad. He could be useful to the United States, European countries and other parts of the world. That step will be emulated by many young men and women whom we cannot afford to lose. I plead with the Government to take today's debate seriously. It has not been attended by a large number of hon. Members, but there are present those who over the years have shown an interest in the matter. Again I commend the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North for introducing the subject and asking the Government to take our comments seriously.
6·14 pm
Mr. Ian Lloyd: All hon. Members are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) for introducing the debate, which is of the greatest significance. As the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said, these debates bring to the Chamber the same small, dedicated, interested and enthusiastic group of hon. Members, among whom there is a great deal of agreement.
For some time my hon. Friend and I have been propagating the idea that we need an office of technology

61
assessment. I shall not deal with that now, but when I see that the matter again falls to us to consider, I wonder whether we need an office of indifference assessment. That would be more to the point. Scientists have a right to complain. They may complain that we do not understand, but they can remedy that, as we can. However, they have a legitimate complaint if they feel that we do not care, which is something that they cannot and should not attempt to forgive. We are a small group, and we must do our best.
My hon. Friend and I disagree about having a Minister for Science, but when the subject is discussed at national level or in the House, we experience the lack of a Minister to fight this corner with energy and determination, which it needs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will fulfill that role and that he will rise rapidly to the Cabinet, where alone this fight can be carried out. That is where it must be fought and won.
I want to discuss the interesting contrast between two or three reports on the subject which have been published recently. The report of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on science and public expenditure 1985 is of great significance. It is a staggering document, as most hon. Members present will appreciate. There is no time to go into it in detail, but I wish to draw attention to some phrases in it. The report states that the council is
"unable to fund ⅓of the Alpha quality research proposals from higher education",
that the
"council cannot afford the instrumentation necessary for this kind of research",
and that it
"cannot meet the agreed share of the cost of collaborative research with industry in information technology."
Lord Stockton suddenly latched on to the importance of information technology in his fascinating speech in the other place recently, and we welcomed that.
Molecular biology is a subject of immense significance today. The report states that it
"can only be given ½ the funds it needs to buy top priority state of the art equipment."
That shows the tremendous increase in the real cost of science.
Natural Environment Research Council projects are
"underfunded to the point of ineffectiveness."
The research councils have lost 2,000 staff since 1981–82. The Science and Engineering Research Council has lost 70 posts, and redeployed 250. "Big" science has fallen from taking up 70 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the budget, but there is no time to enter into that controversy. The Medical Research Council has lost 228 posts. The NERC has lost 450 posts to date. It will lose 300 in 1985–86, and 600 between 1986 and 1990, and so it goes on.
We hear such phrases as
"The well-found laboratory no longer exists",
and
"It is difficult for the most outstanding research scientists to secure research appointments."
Another phrase, used by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, refers to
"The exodus of outstanding young scientists from the United Kingdom."
This is dangerous and is something which no Government, of whatever party, dare neglect. We neglect it at our peril. Another phrase is:
"Parliament, the Government and the country are complacent."
62
That criticism is not without considerable substance. If it is true, we have cause to look to our laurels, in this place., in the Government and in the country.
The conclusions of the report are of the utmost importance. It says:
"Year by year reduction may appear to be modest, but the cumulative effect may be that by 1990 the UK's science base could be 10 per cent. smaller than in 1980."
It refers to a steady attrition that has
"squeezed out investment in many new and growing areas of science, crucial to developing the industries of tomorrow."
I think that this is now virtually common ground between every hon. Member here. I await with great interest to hear what the Government say.
In reply to the general case, we often hear that we are a poor country and that we do not have the funds, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said. Where do funds come from? The House gives us an unrivalled perspective from which to comment on that interesting question. We have just heard that some £5,000 million was wasted on the miners' strike. Perhaps that was unavoidable or a distribution or wasting of resources that could not have been diverted into expenditure on science. Be that as it may, we should look at some of the other points, such as the great industrial subsidy market where, as we know, we seldom look at figures with fewer than eight noughts on the end. We pass them with an aplomb that would do credit to someone who has just won the pools. We see projects such as Nimrod, with nine noughts on the end, or the De Lorean sportscar, with eight noughts on the end. We see vast sums lost in the naval dockyards year after year.
Perhaps most interesting and significant of the lot, because it is in the context of the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North on the balance between expenditure on the welfare state and expenditure on science and the seedcorn is the extraordinarily interesting document just issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General which disclosed that, as a result of the strike in Newcastle, some £170 million has just disappeared. No one knows where it has gone. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not know, although he can guess. However, he knows the scale of the sum.
We know that the Science and Engineering Council is asking for about £40 million to £50 million just to stabilise the situation. That is a large sum in scientific terms but by comparison with some of the sums with the eight or nine noughts at the end, which we often pass on the Estimates on the nod, or sometimes discuss, it is, to use an old word, peanuts.
Mr. Jackson: In the catalogue of alternatives, will my hon. Friend consider the following proposition from the latest Government annual general review:
"the UK Government comes bottom or next to bottom of the R and D league of the six major European Community nations in all areas except Defence, where it is top."?
Mr. Lloyd: That is an interesting and important point. We realise that there is an imbalance between research and development on defence and that in the civil sector, and the Government have been making valiant and interesting efforts to move the results of research, wherever possible and wherever security is not involved, out of defence and into the civil sector, more of which must be done.
However, that does not address or solve the problem of the basic allocation of resources as a percentage of research and development. I share the view that has been expressed twice already, that this is where our real wealth

63
will once again be created—if we restore the standards, quality and effectiveness of our basic science. An interesting point has been made, not only by Sir John Kingman but during the debate in the other place on the history of the ESPRIT programme and new technology. It was made by my noble Friend Lord Stockton, who said that the distinction between basic science and applied science was difficult to draw. Drawing artificial distinctions and saying that we will do this here and not that there can lead to great difficulties and destroy the standards that we are trying to achieve.
I draw attention to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North about Japan. We are constantly being asked to look at the Japanese example to see what we can learn from Japan. I looked at a recent United Nations report on this, and the trends are staggering. I can give figures only in billion yens, because those figures are given in the report, but in the years 1965, 1970, 1975 and 1979, the Japanese GNP, which is after all what we are trying to emulate, is where the wealth is coming from. One reads, as I did this morning, that Japan has one of the largest net overseas investments of any country, not excluding the United States.
If that is the case, how is it done? Expenditure on research and development for the same years, starting in 1965 and coming up to 1979, was 486 billion yen, 1,300 billion yen, 2,900 billion yen, 4,608 billion yen and finally, planned for the present, 2·5 to 3 per cent. of GNP. That is the background, that is the challenge that we are facing, and we have no real alternative but to look seriously again at the scale and direction of national resources that we are deploying. It is only by that redeployment that we shall achieve the swing round that is the common objective of all parties and of all hon. Members. Only by achieving that shall we create a base on which the wealth of Britain towards the end of this century and the beginning of the 21st century will be acceptable, defensible and worth achieving.
6.27 pm
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I shall add to what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) said, but say something about the use of technology for disabled people. Some 21 years ago, I had my first Adjournment debate on this subject, and the man whom I mentioned on that occasion was the oldest surviving respiratory polio victim in the world. He is still living but he is completely paralysed, unable to breathe, speaks by throat breathing but from his bed exports hospital beds, by the application of technology.
I should have been happier if the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North had said something about the quality of life and independence for the disabled by the careful application of technology. We talk about NASA and the space age, but last July I saw a wheelchair made of carbon fibre which an old lady could pick up, easily put on a bus or in the boot of a car and help her aged husband to go all around the place. She gave him mobility and access, both of which were the product of advanced work in space.
We have an example in the House of a fallout from technology, used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who has applied the techniques of Palantype typing, which may be in use in the Chamber today, to turn the symbols into words that are
64
readable on a visual display unit. This means that my right hon. Friend can follow the proceedings in this House. This technology was evolved at Southampton university. It involves a substantial amount of word and language use and micro-circuitry of the highest order. That kind of technology will eventually be of value to everybody in our society.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North for moving this motion. I believe, however, that a committee ought to be formed to investigate the application of technology to the disabled. By raising the quality of life of the disabled and the frail elderly, it is possible that we should save money. I have linked this subject on many occasions with various motions. This is technically possible, economically sound and morally right.
6.30 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Once again a debate on science policy has run out of time before all hon. Members have had an opportunity to speak. I am particularly sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has followed science policy for many years and who failed to catch your eye last time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has been unble to speak in this debate. It is a clear indication that we shall need to hold another debate on science policy in six months or so.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), as have other hon. Members, upon his selection of this topic. He has followed with enterprise and effectiveness his role as chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, an admirable body which he is revivifying. It has an important part to play in securing for science and technology the attention of the House and the country, which science so badly needs.
I welcome to the Treasury Bench the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). I am sure that there is plenty in this subject to provide ample scope for his considerable talents, particularly his diplomatic talents—much needed in a topic of burning concern to science at the present time.
In the six months since our last debate there has been little progress on science policy. The Science and Engineering Research Council's corporate plan is to be published tomorrow. It will highlight the areas of strategic research in science and engineering that are essential to the future industrial development of this country. These opportunities are being seized by other countries—the United States and Japan and also Germany and France. However, this country is still neglecting them.
The grant for the first year that was sought by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils—a minimal increase of £15 million in the science vote—was agreed by the Government. For that small mercy we give thanks. One leg of the dual support system has been jacked up by one peg, but the other leg has been jacked down several pegs by continuing cuts in the funding of higher education. There has been a 2 per cent. a year reduction in the funding of universities. That is incomprehensible in the face of the need and the opportunity to build up skilled manpower and research. No doubt in the future, as in the past, the cuts will fall disproportionately upon research activity.
On the relative decline of support for British science—therefore, of British science itself—there have been two new important sources of information since June. The ABRC approached 40 leading research groups—those

65
most likely to attract such funds as are available. Nineteen of those groups had been selected by the University Grants Committee as potential recipients for the additional equipment funds. Yet in this privileged group the survey found grave concern about increasing losses overseas not only of their most talented students and post-doctoral research workers but of their outstanding senior scientists. The litany of complaints that they listed is familiar to all those who visit research laboratories and universities: that there are more posts overseas and better pay, prospects and facilities, and that there is aggressive recruiting by United States' universities and industry and greater receptiveness by American industry of new ideas. That is contrasted with the frustration of not getting research grants and the resistance to new ideas that is found in Government and industry in this country. The provision of research equipment, central facilities, like the nuclear structure facility, and well-funded, well-staffed research groups, like molecular biology at Cambridge, demonstrate that proper support for science works in this country, and that we should do more.
In June the Secretary of State doubted the 30 per cent. increase, in real terms, in Federal Government support for basic research in science and engineering in universities and colleges in the United States. He agreed that figure with me in correspondence, but he pointed out that it had followed a long period of decline. What has happened in Britain? There has been evidence of a brain drain, and that evidence helped with the first £15 million. At Easter there will be the results of a more thorough survey by the Royal Society into the brain drain. Its report will be available in ample time for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to raise his sights at the next public expenditure round.
There is no need to wait to see evidence of the decline. There has been a further instalment of Irvine and Martins' analysis of publications and citations, bringing the story up to 1982. Of particular interest is the record in particular sciences. I refer to one technology in which I am particularly interested. Heading the areas of decline in applied science is metallurgy, with a 34 per cent. decrease in the share of publications from the United Kingdom between 1977 and 1982. With cause and effect flowing in both directions, this is mirrored in the British Steel Corporation's cut in research and development, in real terms, of 45 per cent. since the Government took office in 1979, with the surrender of all basic research and of recruitment of new blood into the BSC laboratories. That has inevitably resulted in the loss of competitiveness of the higher grade steels that are produced by that industry.
In the light of that kind of evidence, which is accumulating, we should reappraise the targets for the science budget. Level funding makes no provision for sophistication. Sophistication is difficult to measure, but the 2 per cent. per annum put forward by the ABRC is at least a step. However, a constant share of a rising gross domestic product, growing in the long term at 3 per cent. per annum, is the least that the present Government might hope to be able to maintain. The need to catch up in science and technology however, is a factor that we must introduce into the argument. From its peak in 1972, research council expenditure, in real terms, in this country has fallen by 10 per cent., while the GDP has risen by 25 per cent. Therefore, both to match the United States' increase since 1981 and to achieve past shares of GDP in the United Kingdom, a 30 to 40 per cent. increase in
66
research council expenditure on basic and strategic research and development seems to me to be the kind of target for which the scientific community should start to lobby.
That recovery should be followed by more modest growth, but with a big step up in the minimum number of years in which it can be achieved. The United States achieved the 30 per cent. increase in four years. We should begin to plan the phasing of the increase that cart be efficiently absorbed by this country without recreating all the demographic bulges that followed the expansion of the universities in the 1960s and 1970s but that cart be managed within the more modest and limited increase to which we are referring for the research councils.
The research councils and the ABRC have to lobby within the impact that can be achieved on this Government. But they also have to contribute to shaping public opinion and expectations. We are not talking about pay increases for scientists and technologists. We are talking about the science and the technology that are needed to put Britain into a competitive position among the industrial nations. There is an acute pay problem in the universities and in education generally, but that is a separate issue with which we are not dealing in this debate.
There is also mis-spending and misallocation of money and, more important, of scarce scientific manpower, of which the most horrific example is the strategic defence initiative. Star wars simply will not work technologically. The computing side, which holds it all together. is best documented, and it shows that, however fast the optical computers may be, the software problems remain and they are insoluble.
Professor David Parnas of the University of Victoria, who resigned from the SDI advisory committees, is a recognised world expert who continues to be active in naval research in the United States. He has described the difficulties clearly involved in writing and debugging a vast software system that can never be tested in operation. It is as if one were suddenly to switch on for the first time all the computers of all the airlines in the world without having given them a trial run, and expect them to work. SDI poses a comparable problem.
There has been widespread protest among computer scientists, yet the Government have ignored and overridden them. Artificial intelligence, automatic programming and other software developments pleaded in aid in the SDI will not ease the problem. To divert this vast effort into a field that cannot work is a poor way of developing techniques that are useful in systems that can work.
A much more difficult field is CERN, where the particle physicists and machines at Geneva and elsewhere work so brilliantly. It would be quite wrong to interpret the intention of the Kendrew report as cutting off Britian's interest in particle physics. However, there is a general feeling among scientists that, even with budget increases, particle physics would be getting too large a share.
There are also clear long-term problems in relation to decision making in particle physics research, on the machines, the accelerators and individual experiments. As a result, particle physicists may expect to see through only two experiments in a working lifetime.
The Kendrew report set out a negotiating position, and it is up to Ministers, particularly the hon. Member for

67
Buckingham, to carry out the negotiations. In doing so, I hope that he will keep in close touch with working physicists.
I urge two particular directions that should be explored. The first is wider international collaboration. In the post-Geneva atmosphere, there ought to be some scope for the redrawing of national programmes and time scales between Europe, the United States and the Soviet Union. The super-powers will retain their own activities as insurance against any unexpected discoveries of fundamental military or economic importance. But they will also collaborate, and they have an interest in involving Europe in that collaboration.
The other direction in which I encourage the Minister to seek the advice of scientists is the unbundling of the vast range of experimental technique that goes into the particle accelerators and the experiments that use them. Ministers should encourage the particle physicists to seek allies in other sciences. The techniques in instrumentation, computing, pattern recognition, materials, and so on, are potentially applicable not only in industry—although that is important—but in other sciences. It will cost more than a dedicated technique, but a shared technique will cost less to any one science.
I am talking not about spin-off, but about synergy from considering with other scientists the fundamental problems of experiments and the best way of tackling them. This is a long-term development and aid, but particle physics needs to take account of horizons beyond 1990. If the Minister can hold out a perspective beyond then in the further years up to the end of the century, he may find it somewhat easier to negotiate the transition with other countries and with CERN.
The rationalisation of United Kingdom space interests is welcome, but it could become a sink for low-grade imitative technology if scientific research is not given a sufficient role within it. The continuing attrition of agricultural research is utterly deplorable in the face of the problems that we see worldwide, and the much greater problems that will arise at the end of this century and into the next when the population of the world doubles. That is the time scale in which we shall need the results of the plant genetic engineering that is now becoming possible.
The machinery of government remains as undeveloped now as it was in June, but we look forward to hearing from the Minister what use he is making of it.
6·45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) has done us all a service by proposing the motion. The need to maintain the debate on a high level is obviously self-evident, and my hon. Friend did us another service by the serious and thoughtful quality of his contribution. I am personally grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me, as a relative newcomer to this subject, the chance to listen to the seasoned—sometimes highly seasoned—advice of experienced Members on all sides of the House. The debate also takes place against the background of the recent Select Committee report, about which I shall say more later.
The motion suggests, quite rightly, that without a sound research and development capability our economy, and all
68
that depends on it, will suffer considerably. Some hon. Members—if I caught their drift—seemed to imply that the Government were blind to all this. Through the UGC and the research councils, the Department provides more than £1 billion every year for research, but no one is complacent about the needs of science—certainly not the Government.
It was because of this recognition of the importance of the science base to future economic prosperity and their concern about evidence of a new brain drain of British scientists that the Government injected an additional £15 million into next year's science budget, representing a 2·5 per cent. cash increase. The addition is not for one year only. It will be carried forward in the baseline. Similarly, we have increased from £7 million to £10 million the amount available to the UGC next year and in 1987–88 for its selective equipment scheme, which aims to equip the best university research groups in the country to state of the art standards. The £10 million scheme will be carried forward into 1988–89.
The general equipment grant for the universities for the 1986–87 academic year will be £95 million, representing a cash increase of 5·2 per cent. over the current academic year. Additionally, the Computer Board for the Universities is to receive an increase of £1 million in 1986–87 and £2 million in each of the following years to enhance the joint academic computing network. We have today announced our decisions on the allocation of the additional £15 million for the science budget, taking account of recommendations put forward by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. Copies of the board's advice have been placed in the Library.
In its advice the board says that it recognises that the additional sums will make a valuable contribution to sustaining the science base. The House will note that the addition of £15 million to the science budget in 1986–87 corresponds exactly to the bid for that year which the board puts forward in its advice "Science and Public Expenditure", which was published in June. The board recommends further additions in subsequent years. Clearly it will be important to consider these carefully in next year's public expenditure survey in the light of further information which the board has promised about costs of research, international comparisons and the health of Britain's science base—and, I may add, in the light of some of the concerns voiced in today's debate.
Mr. Skeet: We heard all about this in the autumn statement, and I am grateful for that. We have heard today that we are well behind almost every other nation in civil research and development. The Government must put a strong foot forward and do something about this. Are they prepared to do so?
Mr. Walden: I was about to discuss the larger issues in the short time that is available, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of them.
The Government have no illusions. We recognise that the scientists regard themselves as seriously constrained within existing financial provision. The problem, in a sense, is simple. Of its nature, science grows—new fields open up and new perspectives beckon. The costs of undertaking scientific research grow, notably because advances in technology—themselves usually based on advances in fundamental knowledge—lead to in-creasingly sophisticated and expensive scientific

69
equipment and materials. The growth of science has been described as "exponential" in the strict sense of the term. The growth of resources, I do not have to remind hon. Members, is not, but the Government recognise the pressures on the budgets of the research councils and the universities.
At the same time, let us not over-dramatise these pressures. The Government's provision for the 1986–87 scientific budget represents an increase in simple cash terms of more than 60 per cent.—£275 million—compared with the science budget in 1979–80. Measured against average inflation in the economy at large, this cash increase translates into a real terms increase of 8·5 per cent.—a far from ignoble record considering the competing demands in this period on the public purse.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will extra funds be provided in coming years for the new blood scheme?
Mr. Walden: I shall cover that point in my further remarks.
No Government could afford to go on year after year underwriting a continuing real increase in the resources devoted to science. Indeed, the growth in the science budget began to level off in mid 1970s.
Mr. Jackson rose
Mr. Walden: I am sorry, but I have very little time in which to discuss many points.
If I have any criticism of the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North it is that it seems to suggest that we should maintain support for all existing commitments—domestic and international—and support all new areas, or perhaps I have interpreted him exponentially. I wonder whether that is really possible. All developed countries—not just the United Kingdom—are having to face the problem of the inexorably growing costs of maintaining their science and technology base. In the United Kingdom we have evidence from the ABRC and from the Education, Science and Arts Committee of this House which suggests that overall our research councils' costs are growing at 3 per cent. per annum above the rate of inflation. If we were to cover those costs and the costs of meeting all new scientific opportunities, it would imply that science took a progressively larger share of our national wealth. That could scarcely be affordable in the long term. The only serious alternative must be selectivity—identifying fields and groups of researchers that hold out particular promise and concentrating resources on them.
We know from experience that, in the past, there have been serious weaknesses in terms of organisation, management and attitudes, which are only beginning to be properly tackled under this Government. I shall give the House an example of managerial weakness. It may surprise the House to know that we still have no up-to-date information about the scale and the distribution among the various areas of research activity funded through the UGC in the universities. We have no clear picture of how much is going on already and where. The overall estimate of some £600 million, which appears in the Cabinet Office's annual review of research and development, is based on a 15-year-old survey. The Department has funded a research project to provide up-to-date figures, the findings of which should be available early next year.
It seems equally remarkable that the UGC's allocation of resources to universities for research has traditionally
70
taken no account of the strengths and weaknesses of different institutions or of the need for greater concentration of resources as science has become more capital intensive.
In all those areas, new attitudes are now emerging. The University Grants Committee is now moving towards a more selective deployment of general research funds. The research councils are producing five-year corporate plans involving the reshaping of programmes to reflect current—as opposed to historical—priorities. I am glad to note that the Science and Engineering Research Council's first corporate plan is to be published tomorrow. Much more emphasis is being put on directed or centrally co-ordinated programmes in areas identified as being of particular strategic importance. The Economic and Social Reasearch Council has recently taken action to try to improve the appalling PhD completion rates of some of the students supported on ESRC grants. Generally, the research councils are becoming more priority-conscious and rigorous in their management.
I do not pretend that the changes that some of the new attitudes involve can be effected painlessly without some sacrifices in interesting areas of research or hardship for individuals, whether scientists or laboratory cleaners, but indiscriminate scattering of resources would be worse in the long run—worse for science, worse for employment and worse for the country as a whole.
I should like to respond to the remarks made on both sides of the House about CERN. I note the constructive attitude of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray).
The Kendrew report of United Kingdom participation in high energy particle physics, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, is a prime example of the inescapability of priorities. The review, which was jointly funded by the ABRC and the SERC, was established in early 1984 and published its report in June this year. The report made a number of recommendations, the main one being that United Kingdom expenditure on particle physics should be reduced by 25 per cent. by 1991 and that the funds thereby released should be reallocated to other areas of basic science.
That recommendation was not made because the review group considered that United Kingdom particle physics was in any way deficient; on the contrary, as hon. Members have said, it reported that the United Kingdom was making a significant contribution to what is an exciting field of research. The recommendation was not made because CERN had disappointed our expectations—in fact it is a brilliant example of what can be achieved by European collaboration in science.
What led the group to its conclusion was its judgment of the correct priority to be given to particle physics relative to other areas of science. I point out to my hon. friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) that in the group's view 10 per cent. of the science budget was too great a proportion for any one area, no matter how excellent.
I am sure that hon. Members agree that it would not be right to make a hasty judgment. For this reason, one of the first visits that I made after assuming my present appointment was to CERN, to see the laboratory for myself. I add that no one who has had the opportunity to visit CERN could fail to be impressed with the extraordinary work being done there or the capabilities and the enthusiasm of the scientists doing it.

71
The very success of CERN, however, poses a dilemma. It shows that in this area of fundamental science Europe can lead the world, but it also shows that given the resources we could do the same in other areas. CERN is a challenge, as well as a success. It challenges us to repeat the performance in other areas. CERN is a model of what can be achieved, but only if we are willing to adapt ourselves to the needs and pressures of the time.
Perhaps some figures will illustrate the dilemma. In 1984–85, not only was the CERN subscription 6·5 per cent of the total science budget, and over 12 per cent. of the SERC expenditure, but it represented more than 60 per cent. of the international subscriptions paid by the SERC. However, other, less expensive, areas of international collaboration, involving the sharing of expensive facilities, serve a larger scientific community and a wider range of scientific research. That is the view of Sir John Kendrew and his team. It is no use cultivating the illusion that Sir John Kendrew is a Treasury Minister; he is a Nobel laureate and the Government value his report and his advice.
The Government consider that the possibility of achieving significant savings from particle physics, and hence from CERN, needs to be examined seriously. Surely any organisation of the size and complexity of CERN, which has been in existence for over a quarter of a century, could benefit from a major review. I am therefore undertaking a round of bilateral consultations with Ministers of science in CERN member states, to explore with them their reactions to our idea of a joint independent review of the organisation. I stress that the Government remain firmly attached—this matter has arisen during the debate—to European collaboration in science, as has been shown by our recent actions.
Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will move only by consent, and not unilaterally, on CERN?
Mr. Walden: Our aim is to engage in consultations to achieve a joint independent review. I believe that that is a reasonable objective.
I should like to have said more about defence versus civilian research. I will simply note that the Government are keeping a close and critical eye on all departmental research programmes and on the balance of such programmes.
I am sorry that it will not be possible to respond to all the points made in the debate, particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North, who initiated the debate. I should mention that we still await the advice of the ABRC on international comparisons, and we shall study them closely when they come. The restructuring costs of the councils, which are a heavy burden, have to some extent been alleviated by the new money that my right hon. Friend has found for them.
On the question of the—
It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business).

Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Development) Order Confirmation Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7 pm
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I suggest that the motion to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses should be debated with the motion for Second Reading.
Mr. McQuarrie: I place on record at the outset the fact that this is the first opportunity that I or any hon. Member has had to discuss the Bill. It has been said by the Scottish National party in my constituency that the Bill could have been discussed or promoted earlier. To set the record straight, I should make it clear that it has not been possible to discuss the Bill in the House until this evening. I accept that the SNP in my constituency and its prospective parliamentary candidate have shown an ignorance of parliamentary procedure in suggesting otherwise.
If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—later supported by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)—had not tabled a blocking motion on 10 July this year, the order would have been passed a long time ago. The hon. Member for Dundee, East, who is not in his place, despite his opposition to the Bill, has told his party in my constituency that he supported the trustees' proposals, but his action on 29 October clearly proved that his support was certainly not for this scheme or for the Peterhead harbour trustees. It is an example of the double standards to which we have become accustomed from the SNP in Scotland. It says one thing in my constituency and the opposite in other places. I do not blame the hon. Member for Dundee, East if he wishes to support the harbour board in his constituency, but he should not mislead my constituents who wish to see the scheme approved and welcome the progress that the Peterhead harbour board has made.
This is a Bill to confirm a provisional order made by the Secretary of State under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, after a local inquiry by commissioners, in pursuance of the Act. The order is promoted by the harbour trustees of Peterhead who are charged by statute with managing the fishing harbours at Peterhead in my constituency.
The inquiry into the provisions of the draft order was held in Peterhead from 1 to 15 May 1985 on 11 sitting days, before commissioners appointed by the Secretary of State under section 3 of the 1936 Act. The commissioners were Lord Hughes, as chairman, the Earl of Balfour, Lady Sempill and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). The commissioners heard full and lengthy arguments for and against the order and found unanimously in favour of the scheme. The procedure at the inquiry was regular, according to law and parliamentary procedure and practice. The order, as modified in accordance with the the commissioners' recommendations, forms the schedule to the Bill.
The object of the order is to authorise harbour works which will calm the water in the existing harbours and provide additional berthing spaces for the fishing vessels.

73
The fishing harbours at Peterhead have become the pre-eminent port in Europe for landings of white fish. I should like to illustrate the increase in trade. The number of boxes landed at Peterhead increased from 300,000 in 1970 to 2,109,000 in the year up to March 1985. In addition, Peterhead has become an important port for the export of grain and other bulk cargoes and serves its own hinterland of grain producers in the north-east of Scotland.
Unfortunately, though acceptably, the increase in trade at Peterhead harbour has led to severe congestion in the fishing vessels' area in the harbour. At weekends particularly, vessels frequently have to berth six or seven deep from the quay wall, which makes the servicing of vessels difficult and inefficient and causes a safety hazard. The harbours are too often crowded and many vessels that use Peterhead as their home port have to be turned away.
Another problem is that steel-hulled boats have to berth alongside wooden-hulled boats, which causes considerable damage to the fishing vessels. The problem is even greater because of the excessive wave motion in the existing harbour which provides inadequate shelter for fishing vessels. The trustees have had to take that fact into consideration in putting forward their proposals.
Another important factor is that the Peterhead harbour trustees do not conduct any oil-related business in the port. That has been made clear in order to allay the fears of companies and other harbour authorities which are involved in that industry and feel that there is a threat to their business. It must be said that the trustees at Peterhead also have no intention of engaging in that business when the development has been completed.
The additional berthing space is required primarily for fishing vessels and general cargo boats. The oil supply boats are served either in the adjacent Bay of Refuge, which is not under the management of the Peterhead harbour trustees, or at the harbour in Aberdeen where the oil-berthing capacity is far greater and the facilities more suitable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the scheme proposed by the Peterhead harbour trustees will result in a loss of business for Aberdeen where the oil work is being carried out.
The draft order, together with the plans and sections of the proposals, were deposited at the Scottish Office and elsewhere, pursuant to the 1936 Act, in March 1984. Ten petitions were lodged against the draft order, but three were withdrawn before the public inquiry. The remaining seven can be grouped according to the nature of their objections.
The first group could be the Peterhead bay authority, which is responsible for the management of the adjacent harbour—the Peterhead Bay of Refuge—and the north of Scotland hydro-electric board, which have both complained that the proposed works would have a detrimental effect on the safe manoeuvring of tankers in the Bay of Refuge. The commissioners, in submitting their report to the Secretary of State for Scotland, said:
"We consider that the proposed harbour extension would bring considerable benefit to the operation of the existing fishing harbour and would not prejudice the operation of the Peterhead bay harbour, and in particular the manoeuvring of tankers in the bay, especially if there is a reversion to the size of tanker which, with one exception, was used prior to the end of the coal strike."
The commissioners add, in relation to the report from the Department of Transport and the statement to the inquiry by Captain Fellingham:
74
"In any event, we heard a considerable amount of technical evidence addressed by both the promoters and the objectors. We were much more impressed by the evidence of the promoters and we had no hesitation in accepting it."
The second group of objectors comprised the Aberdeen harbour board, the Aberdeen Stevedoring Company, the Dundee port authority and the Forth ports authority, which appeared jointly before the inquiry to complain that the works were unnecessary and would remove trade from their ports. The commissioners said:
"We are further of the view that the ports of Aberdeen, Dundee and the Forth ports harbour authority as to what is proposed at Peterhead has limited foundation, but to allay some of the fears we propose to delete from the order lines 29 to 32 on page 4 which would have permitted the construction of the roll-on, roll-off facility. We would add that it is no part of our function to amend the dock labour scheme, and we cannot stultify beneficial development at non-dock labour scheme ports on the grounds that it might provide unfair competition to harbours which are within the scheme."
The final group of objectors comprised Mr. Thomas Chalmers and 17 others, residents of homes in Peterhead adjacent to the proposed works, who complained that the work would be detrimental to amenity and their houses. In the report to the Secretary of State the commissioners stated:
"We have paid considerable attention to the objections of those living in the near vicinity of the proposed works but consider that any loss of amenity to them is insufficient ground for preventing the proposed development from going ahead. We propose however to impose conditions to minimise the loss of amenity by restricting the height of the wall on the proposed new south breakwater to 6·2 metres above the ordnance datum: by restricting the height of any buildings on the proposed north quay to the level of the existing retaining wall: by restricting the hours during which blasting and drilling operations can be conducted to the period between 8 am and 6 pm or half an hour before sunrise to half an hour after sunset whichever period is the shorter: and by prohibiting such work during Saturdays and Sundays: by imposing measures for the control of noise and the restriction of vibration caused by blasting and drilling operations as offered by the promoters: and by providing for comoensation for any physical damage caused by such operations under the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973".
Although the commissioners ruled in this manner, I felt that I had an obligation to my constituents to pursue the matter, as I was aware that they were not wholly satisfied with the result of the inquiry.
I had a meeting with Mr. Stanley Anderson, the consulting engineer concerned with the Peterhead harbour trustees' proposals, to secure information on the other matters raised by those objectors. On being questioned about the grain operations, Mr. Anderson informed me that they had been occurring at Peterhead for more than 10 years—a matter of which I was aware and which I accepted as being true. He told me that the trustees had guaranteed that they would ensure the use of the most modern methods and equipment for loading grain on to the boats. He added that, in the early stages of the development, the grain would be loaded on to the new south quay, which would remove the boats from such close proximity to the houses. Mr. Anderson pointed out also that the companies that acted as stevedores are private contractors and that, in the interests of the objectors, the trustees would lay down instructions on the method of loading the grain to minimise any inconvenience to them.
In paragraph 4 of the petition, the objectors expressed concern at the possible increase in vehicular traffic during and after the development period. Although I accepted that there was bound to be an increase during the construction period, I believed that the limitations and restrictions

75
placed by the commissioners in their report would reduce that traffic. As for traffic after the development, I established that the trustees' proposals for a readjustment of the traffic system, which would have to be approved by the Grampian regional council, would result in considerably less traffic using Lodge walk and Harbour street than at present. Grampian regional council, which had originally petitioned against the order but later withdrew its objection, in its petition, said:
"Your petitioners in general support the proposals by the trustees and do not object to them as such".
In paragraph 6 of the petition the same group of objectors expressed worry that, in the area of the seaward site of Harbour street and Lodge walk and adjacent to the lifeboat station, buildings and other structures would be erected which would restrict their present view of the sea.
I was satisfied that the restrictions placed by the commissioners would provide safeguards, but, in addition, Mr. Anderson guaranteed that the trustees had undertaken that no structures would be erected above the existing parapet level. It was pointed out also that any proposals for quayside structures would have to be approved by the planning committee of the Banff and Buchan district council and that full opportunities would be afforded at all stages for the residents to make representations if they thought it necessary.
The final part of the petition of these objectors is concerned with the loss of amenity ground on the seaward side of Harbour street and Lodge walk which was of benefit to the residents of Peterhead and the objectors. The petition showed that the ground was owned by Banff and Buchan district council. I am advised that that amenity area, with the seats, will be retained in an acceptable form. That undertaking has been given by the Peterhead harbour trustees. Banff and Buchan district council raised no objections to the trustees' proposals. I understand that the local authority approved them. Given those assurances and the further protection that will be available to my constituents, I am certain that any future representations that they make will be sincerely considered by the Peterhead harbour trustees.
All those petitions were carefully considered by the Parliamentary Commissioners before the report submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the normal course of events, the Bill would have been presented to Parliament and passed all stages without trouble. That was not to be, as the Aberdeen harbour board presented a petition praying that the confirming Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. It is interesting to place on record that, of all the objectors who had been heard at the public inquiry, only the Aberdeen harbour board could not accept the commissioners' findings. Even the Dundee port authority had no further petition, despite the fact that the hon. Member for Dundee, East, in his usual arrogant manner, had chosen to oppose the Bill on his own account. No member of the Dundee harbour board appeared in person before the public inquiry.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his description of my signature to a motion to the House of Commons as "arrogant". Is he aware that I signed the motion in direct response to a request by the chief executive of my port authority?
Mr. McQuarrie: That may well be, but the hon. Member for Dundee, East was not in his place when I discussed earlier the fact that he had assured the constituency and the parliamentary candidate in Banff and Buchan that he was supporting the Peterhead harbour trustees. I refer the hon. Gentleman to a copy of the Buchan Observer in which the parliamentary candidate clearly stated that he had approached the hon. Member for Dundee, East who had given him an assurance that he would support the Peterhead harbour trustees' proposal.
Mr. Wilson: That is wrong.
Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that the information conveyed in the Buchan Observer by the prospective parliamentary candidate for Banff and Buchan is wrong.
It is an insult to the commissioners for the Aberdeen harbour board to pursue this matter further after the most careful consideration of its pleadings at the inquiry. Having read Mr. John Russell Turner's evidence to the inquiry, which is in pages 992 to 1138 of the proceedings, I can see the reason for the persistence. Mr. Turner is the general manager of the Aberdeen harbour board. During his evidence it was perfectly clear that he was adopting a dictatorial and evasive attitude to the Parliamentary Commissioners. It was the old story—"Whatever I say is right and whatever you say is wrong." One has only to read the evidence to gain a clear impression that Mr. Turner was determined, by any action he could take, to prevent the Peterhead trustees from successfully promoting the Bill.
Having carried out considerable research into the money that has been spent at Aberdeen harbour over the years, and the authority for carrying out that work, I asked myself: how has the Aberdeen harbour board the effrontery to petition against the Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Development) Order Confirmation Bill when it has carried out over many years a works programme without asking for parliamentary approval? Should not the Aberdeen harbour board have been subjected to the same parliamentary scrutiny as the Peterhead harbour trustees?
Mr. Gerald Malone: An important point must be clarified. The Aberdeen harbour board has spent considerable sums. It has invested to improve existing port facilities, not to carry out enormous expansion such as is proposed by the Bill. That is the distinction. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to be unfair. I think it is best that he should know that that was the purpose of the expenditure.
Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my hon,. Friend for making that point, but he must accept that, in the past few years, the work in Aberdeen has been carried out with sole purpose of extending the harbour facilities—[Interruption.]— and carrying out new works. The Aberdeen harbour board has spent money on tidal works and improvements in the harbour area.
Harbour boards generally have the power to dredge the harbour and carry out maintenance and improvement work. However, the power is usually confined to the lands belonging to the harbour board. If a board wishes to carry out tidal work, it requires parliamentary authority because the seabed belongs to the Crown and the harbour work extending into tidal waters interferes with the rights of navigation.

77
It appears that the Aberdeen harbour board relies for its powers on the provisions of the Aberdeen Harbour Confirmation Act 1960. It may be relying on section 69 of that Act, which confers power on the board
"on or in relation to any lands for the time being vested in them or in relation to any other property belonging to them leased, let, hired or loaned to the Board."
Notwithstanding the wide wording of section 69(1)(a) of the Act, it says that the powers apply only to the land and may not be exercised in tidal waters. It seems that any tidal work and development in the Aberdeen harbour before and during Mr. Turner's tenure as general manager may have been carried out unlawfully and should have been investigated by the Secretary of State.
I shall deal with some of the matters raised in the new petition of the Aberdeen harbour board after the public inquiry. It repeats what was said in the earlier petition and at the inquiry. In paragraph 4, the Aberdeen harbour board admits that the commissioners have found in favour of the order. Why can it not accept the report by the appointed parliamentary body, which gave it a full hearing? If the Aberdeen harbour board suggests that the order is wrong in principle, Mr. Turner's evidence did not prove that. On the contrary, he made a case for it, as can be seen from his cross-examination by counsel and the commissioners.
The theme of the new petition is based on many statements that are not new, and I shall deal with some of them. First, there is a complaint about the non-existence of the national dock labour scheme, which the Aberdeen harbour board said would give Peterhead an unfair advantage over Aberdeen. The national dock labour scheme has been in existence since 1942, and this is the first time that Aberdeen has suggested that it is adversely affected.
It became clear from Mr. Turner's evidence to the inquiry that he wanted to be rid of the scheme in Aberdeen because it was killing the fishing trade in that harbour. Some 67,000 boxes of fish are landed each day—Monday to Saturday—at Peterhead compared with 3,400 boxes at Aberdeen. That includes 428 boxes that have been consigned from other ports in Scotland. As the Peterhead order is mainly for the fishing vessels, there should be no need to prove the case further.
In addition, it was clear from Mr. Turner's evidence that fishing is responsible for only 10 per cent. of the revenue at Aberdeen harbour. That must be a serious loss-making operation, and it proves the evidence brought out during the public inquiry that the fishermen are voting with their feet and staying away from Aberdeen.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) seems to think that he is in the Chamber for a laugh. He never comes in for a serious debate. It would serve him better in his position in the shadow Cabinet if he listened to what is said by hon. Members.
Mr. John Home Robertson rose—
Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
It will be most interesting to know how much of the total loss at Aberdeen is accounted for by the loss-making fishing trade. Mr. Turner was unable to give that information when he was pressed by the chairman of the commissioners, who suggested that he was trying to steal the fishing vessels away from Peterhead.
Paragraph 7 of the new petition submits that at Aberdeen harbour and elsewhere in Scotland more than
78
sufficient harbour facilities already exist, which are better located and well suited to meet the requirements of the type of shipping that could be expected to make use of the facilities that could be afforded by the proposed work. The simple question is: where and how suitable are they? My constituency covers the largest fishing area in the United Kingdom. There are nice harbours at Portsoy, Whitehills, Banff, Macduff, Gardenstown and Fraserburgh. Fraserburgh did not oppose the confirmation order although it would have had most to lose from it. All those harbours are efficient and busy. Fraserburgh commissioners have just promoted two parliamentary orders in the House for increased fishing and grain facilities.
None of those harbours could cope with the trade that is carried out at Peterhead and none has the same difficulties as Peterhead in accommodating the fishing vessels that use the harbours. Mr. Turner in his evidence stated that half a million tonnes of traffic would be at risk if the Peterhead order is approved. That is the total traffic passing through Aberdeen, and it is farcical to make such a suggestion. In cross-examination, Mr. Turner accepted that that was all guesswork, scaremongering and had no foundation—[Interruption.] Look at the record.
If, as Aberdeen's petition states, there are adequate facilities there and in other ports, why did Mr. Turner tell the inquiry that the board has plans for further extensions costing millions of pounds over the next 10 years? Is that just another reason for his opposition to the Peterhead proposals, with the Big Brother attitude—"Don't do as I do, do as I tell you"?
On the matter of the grain trade, I shall confine myself to the latest figures from J R Crabtree, which are an update on the Entwhistle report that was referred to at the public inquiry. Between August and March 1984–85, Peterhead handled 143,079 tonnes compared with Aberdeen's 9,089 tonnes. In April, Peterhead had 7,687 tonnes and Aberdeen had nil. In May, Peterhead had 3,146 tonnes and Aberdeen had 5,889. In June, Peterhead had 553 tonnes, Aberdeen nil. That brought the total for the period to 154,565 tonnes for Peterhead and 14,978 tonnes for Aberdeen. In the current period, covering August, September and October 1985, Peterhead and Aberdeen had no grain traffic in August. In September, Peterhead had 14,042 tonnes, Aberdeen nil. In October, Peterhead had 31,395 tonnes, Aberdeen nil. For those three months, Peterhead had 45,437 tonnes of barley exports, Aberdeen nil.
It is interesting to compare other ports which, according to the Aberdeen harbour board, handle barley exports. In the same period for the 1985–86 totals, Montrose handled 20,570 tonnes, Dundee 9,738 tonnes and Leith 18,467 tonnes. Therefore, it is clear that neither Aberdeen nor any other Scottish port can match Peterhead for the handling of barley for export. That fully justifies the Bill.
Oil-related works were also mentioned in the new petition. Much discussion took place at the public inquiry about what Peterhead might do in the future which could affect Aberdeen. Mr. Turner was not prepared to say that Peterhead had no intention of taking on any oil-related work. That was made clear by Mr. Tom Buchan, the chairman of the Peterhead trustees, in his evidence to the inquiry. In his evidence Mr. Buchan said:
"Well, as far as the trustees are concerned there is a gentleman's agreement, an operating agreement between the two bodies that we don't touch oil vessels—we have had many approaches over the years from various companies to use the

79
fishing port as an oil base and that has been refused, and I see no reason why the Peterhead harbour trustees should change their mind in the future."
If that was not a good enough undertaking for Mr. Turner and the Aberdeen harbour board, apparently nothing will satisfy them in their efforts to thwart the passing of the Bill.
I refer to Aberdeen harbour board's plan for a Peterhead harbour extension, which it said would be acceptable. I have with me some drawings, which I now exhibit to the House. I was unable to bring the whole bundle to the House because it is more than 3 ft in length. Those drawings were presented by the Peterhead harbour trustees to the public inquiry. They were accepted by the commissioners, who reported back to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The drawings were compiled by the trustees' consulting engineers. I am sure that the House will agree that it does not require an experienced person to see that they involved a great deal of time and money. As I said, those drawings were considered and approved by the commissioners at the public inquiry.
I also have a cutting from The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper that is circulated widely in Scotland, especially in the Grampian region. It is dated 25 October and headed, "Harbour plan unveiled." It is a report from Mr. Bob Kennedy, the fishing editor. The article states that the Aberdeen harbour board unveiled plans for an alternative scheme to that proposed by the Peterhead harbour trustees. The drawing illustrated in the article is all that has been issued. No technical details have been set out, nor were prior consultations held with the Peterhead harbour trustees. Mr. Tom Buchan is quoted in the article as saying:
"It is a bit like me having a garage plan turned down by the planning authority and then my neighbour presenting me with his own ideas."
Mr. Turner, general manager of the Aberdeen harbour board, suggests that it was endeavouring to help, not hinder; but in the article he goes on to admit that ideally Aberdeen harbour board would not want a new development at Peterhead and that it had used considerable expertise to prepare the alternative plan. As none of the harbour trustees at Peterhead has seen the scheme, other than in The Press and Journal article, let us look at how expert it is.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Has not the hon. Gentleman put his finger on the problem? At the initial inquiry, and since then, despite determined efforts by Aberdeen harbour board, the Peterhead trustees have never been allowed to see the alternative scheme. I have evidence from the Peterhead trustees' parliamentary agents that no agreement could be reached. Would it not be better if the trustees looked seriously at the scheme instead of dismissing it in a cavalier way, as the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing?
Mr. McQuarrie: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I have checked thoroughly. The Peterhead harbour trustees were not advised of the scheme until they saw it in The Press and Journal on 25 October. There has been no discussion on the matter.
Mr. Malone: This is an important point. If I am called, I shall make the point that Aberdeen harbour board has
80
been keen to compromise. I do not want my hon. Friend to be wrong on a matter of fact. The question was put by the general manager of Aberdeen harbour board to Mr. McCrae, the clerk to the Peterhead harbour trustees, at the meeting in London with the two sets of parliamentary agents, and it was dismissed out of hand at that stage. That was in October or the early part of November.
Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. However, my information is that no discussions have taken place between Aberdeen harbour board and Peterhead harbour trustees. They are the people who are affected.
Aberdeen harbour board unveiled a plan, and the newspaper article was presented to Mr. Stanley Anderson, the consulting engineer to the Peterhead harbour trustees, as the trustees were willing to look at it, although the information was scanty.
After those investigations, the following points must be made. First, it was proven during the public inquiry, after careful consideration, that the Peterhead trustees' scheme would not interfere with tanker manoeuvrability in the Bay of Refuge. That was accepted by the commissioners.
Secondly, the width of the structure proposed by Aberdeen is such that the storm waves will be reflected straight back into the Bay of Refuge, reaching a possible height of 20 to 30 ft, which would render navigation by fishing and commercial vessels hazardous.
Thirdly, the alternative plan for width would be too narrow to be anything other than a vertically faced structure. It would act as a mirror reflecting the full energy of the waves back into the Bay of Refuge, again causing severe problems for the fishing and commercial vessels.
Fourthly, the Peterhead trustees' proposals took full account of those dangers, as can be seen from their scheme, where the proposed jetty is much wider and has a curved end to prevent unacceptable wave motion within the new harbour and render the existing south harbour free of any wave motion. The Aberdeen harbour board proposals do neither. They are defective in that the wave motion would be considerably worsened in the existing south harbour. That factor was established after extensive tests carried out by Mr. Anderson, the consulting engineer, on various shapes and forms of harbour layouts at the hydraulic research station at Wallingford.
Fifthly, it is obvious that no real thought, never mind the considerable expertise claimed by Mr. Turner, has gone into providing an alternative proposal to that of Peterhead. Nobody in his senses, having spent £250,000, as the Peterhead trustees have done, in the preparation of drawings, models, site investigation, design, hydraulic testing and many other operations, would consider a 3 in by 3 in illustration in a daily newspaper a suitable alternative to that produced by the Peterhead trustees.
For those reasons, it is right that the ridiculous alternative proposals should be rejected by the Peterhead harbour trustees. Even Mr. Turner is quoted in the article as conceding that they had already been dismissed as not being cost-effective by the clerk to the Peterhead harbour trustees, Mr. Colin McCrae.
Paragraph 12 of the new petition seeks to have the Bill referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. In parliamentary discussions arising out of motions to refer confirmation Bills to a Joint Committee, it has been established that such a course should be followed only where a good prima facie case has been

81
made that there have been grave errors in procedure or a serious miscarriage of justice before the commissioners, or that new or material facts have emerged. Since the present procedure was introduced, on the passing of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1899, only twice has such a motion been successful—in the Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Act 1904 and the exceptional Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Bill this Session.
In the Leith case, the commissioners had denied an objector a locus standi and it appeared that there was a denial of justice. As is well known, the Edinburgh case has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee. Peterhead harbour trustees, the promoters of the Bill, do not think that there is any legitimate reason for referring the Bill to a Joint Committee. The new petition of the Aberdeen harbour board merely raises matters that have already been argued or could have been argued before the commissioners at the public inquiry.
Due to the pressure of time, I have been able to deal only in part with the necessity of giving a Second Reading to the Bill tonight. At present, unemployment in Aberdeen is only 5·6 per cent., compared with 13·9 per cent. in Peterhead. The development will create many jobs during the construction period and some permanent jobs on completion. It will mean a safer harbour for the fishermen, who require our support, when one considers the dangerous calling that they follow.
For that reason, and for others that I have mentioned, I ask my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to support Second Reading of the Bill and to reject the petition by Aberdeen harbour board to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
7.40 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: My intervention in the debate will not be brief, although it had been my intention to be brief. I gained the impression from the speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) that the hon. Gentleman thought that this matter should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. However, as the hon. Gentleman said that he had no intention of agreeing to such a proposition, the Opposition obviously have a duty to persuade the hon. Gentleman that even at this late hour and as the debate continues within its time limit, he ought seriously to reconsider his position on that point.
It is right that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan should argue his case on behalf of the Peterhead authority. I was tempted to say on behalf of his constituency, but from the evidence and the correspondence that hon. Members have received, I think that the hon. Member would concede that there is some controversy in his constituency about the proposed development. The argument between the Peterhead harbour authority and Aberdeen harbour authority has far wider repercussions than the harbour at Peterhead and the port at Aberdeen.
Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman has said that there are considerable problems in my constituency. Will he elaborate upon those constituency problems?
Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should not put words into my mouth. I did not say that there were considerable problems in his constituency. When he reads Hansard
82
tomorrow he will see that I understand from correspondence that I have received that there is some controversy in his constituency about the development. I did not say that there were considerable problems.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred to the controversy that surrounds the proposal to develop Peterhead harbour in an area which the harbour authority does not own. The area is owned by the Peterhead bay authority. The matter of ownership is one of the major differences between the developments that have taken place over the years at Aberdeen and the proposed development at Peterhead. The developments at Aberdeen have taken place in an area that is owned by the authority carrying out that development whereas the Peterhead trustees do not own the land where the proposed development will take place.
I honour and respect the fact that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is entitled to argue on behalf of the proposition for the Peterhead authority. I was interested in the points that he made in seeking to reassure the householders in the proposed development area about the skyline of the buildings to be constructed if the developments and the proposed road network went ahead.
The hon. Gentleman said that the road network would have to be approved by Grampian regional council and the planning consents affecting the skyline and other matters would have to be approved by Banff and Buchan district council. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that that would be an automatic fait accompli; if the residents accepted the development, the planning authorities would take care of the residents' interests in planning considerations.
After 15 years in the House of Commons dealing with such matters both on a constituency and a national level, it has been my experience that it is pointless to put too much faith in the outcome of a planning application. I would not want to put a great deal of emphasis or stress on such an assurance because no planning authority would give any assurances before a planning application was submitted. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan does not have grounds to pursue that point on that basis.
On a lighter note, it was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to Mr. Tom Buchan. The hon. Gentleman said that the Aberdeen harbour authority's approach to the matter was like Mr. Buchan having an application for a garage rejected by the planning authority and his neighbour then suggesting an alternative proposal. I have news for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I do not know what happens in his part of the world, but in Falkirk, East that is a regular feature of garage construction. The two neighbours get together and arrange a compromise. That is what we are trying to do today.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan skated over the very important point of Peterhead harbour's record on the export of grain. I was tempted to intervene and ask the hon. Gentleman why, if Peterhead harbour is operating so well and efficiently at present, it should want to spend £13·2 million. That was the estimated cost in March 1984 but obviously that will have risen since then, as one can see the final costs of civil engineering jobs over the years outstrip estimated planning costs. I do not understand why the Peterhead planning authority wants to spend that sum if, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan claims, it is operating exceptionally well.
The only reason for the authority wishing to spend that money is that it wants to attract more traffic from other

83
ports. I know that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will say that the harbour authority wants to spend that money to provide a safer refuge for the fishermen who steam into Peterhead harbour. I am in favour of making the sea and the refuge as safe as possible for the fishermen, but I cannot accept that the development is solely for the safe passage of the fishermen who use the harbour. I suspect that in his heart of hearts the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan knows that.
Mr. McQuarrie: I did not say that the development was intended solely for the fishermen. I said that it was primarily for the fishermen. The hon. Gentleman, who has had ministerial experience, must accept that the vessels in the harbour line up six, seven or eight deep and that there is a serious risk of overcrowding in the harbour. That risk justifies the harbour commissioners in asking for an extension primarily for the fishermen and to make the harbour safe. I do not dispute the fact that the proposal would make the harbour safe. The prime purpose of the Bill is to assist the fishing vessels and to make the harbour safe.
Mr. Ewing: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I suspect that the alternative proposal by the Aberdeen harbour authority would make the harbour safe primarily for fishermen, as the hon. Gentleman says. There is another element involved, and that is that the development would attract additional traffic. The authority is seeking to increase the facilities of the harbour to allow vessels up to 10,000 tonnes into the harbour. It is clearly essential to attract additional traffic to obtain a return on a proposed investment of £13·2 million.
Mr. Malone: If the proposal was intended to benefit fishermen in the first instance, it seems odd that the proposals put before the commission included a roll-on/ roll-off facility. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has said that the fishermen are voting with their feet, but I do not think that even that novel concept requires a roll-on/roll-off facility.
Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Whether the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the Peterhead authority like it or not, there is grave discontent about the way in which the commission conducted the inquiry. It cannot be right for one party to be able to take the commission on a tour of the area and to submit its evidence without cross-examination.
Mr. McQuarrie: That is not true.
Mr. Ewing: It is clearly recorded in the documents that the Peterhead harbour authority was never cross-examined. The chairman, Lord Hughes, allowed no cross-examination of the authority itself as distinct from its witnesses.
Mr. McQuarrie: Mr. Tom Buchan, chairman of the harbour trustees, was questioned and cross-examined. His evidence is contained in papers 15 to 80 of the record. The words "T. S. Buchan cross-examined" are there for all to see. Mr. Buchan gave evidence and was examined by Mr. Osborne and cross-examined by other parties including the chairman. I quote just one example:
"The Chairman: If all the parties produce documents, if you finish up with 10 the Objectors will start with No. 11."
84
That is just one of the chairman's comments to Mr. Buchan in cross-examination. The hon. Gentleman should get the facts right.
Mr. Ewing: The cross-examination of witnesses is the function not of the chairman but of those representing the objectors. One of the unsatisfactory features of the inquiry was the attitude of the chairman—I say this in the friendliest possible way to my old friend Lord Hughes—to those seeking to object to the proposition. I leave it at that, but the deep dissatisfaction and discontent that it has caused is just one of the reasons why the matter should be submitted to a joint Committee of both Houses.
It would be wrong for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to try to convince the House that the commission conducted the inquiry satisfactorily because it did not. Indeed, that is a salient difference between the 1904 Leith tramways case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and last week's western relief road case. In the latter case, there was no complaint about the commission of inquiry, but there was certainly a complaint in the 1904 case and there is a complaint in relation to the present case which should be taken into account when the House makes its decision today.
There is a much broader issue involved. As I have said, one might easily gain the impression that this was a private battle between the Aberdeen harbour authority and the Peterhead trustees, but nothing could be further from the truth. We need look no further for evidence than the barley export comparisons made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan between Peterhead and the Forth ports. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention the significant fact that the EEC Commission recommended to the inquiry that there should be no extension of harbour and port facilities in the United Kingdom. As Scotland is included in the United Kingdom, that was a salient feature in the investigation. If the project were allowed to go ahead it is clear that there would be serious repercussions for the Forth authority ports. At the last count, there were some 21 harbours around the coast of Scotland involved in those exports.
Mr. McQuarrie: Give us the facts.
Mr. Ewing: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would afford others the courtesy and respect with which the House listened to his comments. He should sit quietly for a minute and listen to what others have to say.
There has been a dramatic change in the export of goods from Scottish ports in the past five years, and the extension of facilities at Peterhead will merely aggravate the problem. I hope that I shall not bore the House if I give some figures. Five or six years ago, 75 per cent. of all exports with manufacturing origin in Scotland were exported through Scottish ports—the Clyde authority ports, the Forth authority ports and ports in other areas of Scotland, including one non-scheme port. Peterhead is not the only non-scheme port in Scotland. Now, only 25 per cent. of all goods with manufacturing origin in Scotland are exported from Scottish ports. The reason is the introduction of the grid system, to which the Government have turned a blind eye despite my constant efforts to make them come to terms with it.
Under the grid system, the shipowners—not the Government or the exporters—pay for the transport of exports by road from any part of Scotland to the non-scheme port of Felixstowe. A good example is whisky

85
which is manufactured in Perth but taken by lorry free of charge down to Felixstowe. The reason given is the long steaming distance to Scottish ports, but the Government fail to appreciate that the grid system is leading slowly but surely to the closure of the Scottish ports and that as soon as that result is achieved the system will be removed and the exporters will have to pay the road haulage costs. Among all the threats to the prospects of Scottish industry I can think of none more damaging than the inability to use our own ports for the export of our manufactured goods.
Gartcosh is in the news. I do not intend to go into detail about it, but 48 per cent. of the cargo going out from my port of Grangemouth is finished steel products from Gartcosh—finished steel products for export to the German car industry. If Gartcosh closes, we simply could not replace that dry cargo let alone allow a development at Peterhead which may take away more. Grangemouth is also a port which is used to ship to the Shetlands and other islands.
The Bill has far wider repercussions that appear to be appreciated by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). I must say this as gently and as kindly as I can, but I simply do not accept that the Peterhead harbour trustees can blandly assure us that they will not take cargo from anybody else. It may be Christmas, but we do not live in a fairytale world. The Peterhead harbour authorities will be as much in competition for exported goods from Scotland as Grangemouth, Leith, Dundee, Aberdeen or any other port.
Mr. Robert Hughes: If the scheme went ahead and Peterhead harbour did not increase its revenue as much as possible by increased trade, Peterhead fishermen would pay a heavy price. What would the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan say then?
Mr. Ewing: That is a very important point. It emphasises what I am trying to say about the viability of this investment at Peterhead. It could not be supported by fishing alone. There are no ifs and buts about that. This investment of £13·2 million at 1984 prices, now possibly in the region of £17 million, could not be supported simply by fishing. If that is true and the House accepts it, support for this investment must come from somewhere else.
It is the somewhere else that concerns us. There is uncertainty about where the investment will come from. There is uncertainty about all that will flow from a decision to allow this development to go ahead without further examination. That makes me strongly favour reference to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and on that I will cast my vote tonight.
8·2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): On these occasions when confirmation Bills are contested there can be a general misunderstanding about the Secretary of State's role and responsibilities. As we have heard tonight, the Opposition, and especially the official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), can take a fairly broad view. I am sure that hon. Members will be under no illusion about the Secretary of State's function. The House will know that this is purely formal in relation to the introduction of the Bill and of our proceedings tonight.
Perhaps I might go back a little in time to set those remarks in context. Under the Private Legislation
86
Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, where a provisional order under that Act is opposed, as is the case here, an inquiry is held before the commissioners. This inquiry takes place in Scotland at or near the place which is the subject of the powers which are sought.
Promoters and objectors, represented by council, appear before the commissioners and lead evidence. After the hearing the commissioners recommend to the Secretary of State, in the form of a report, that the order should be issued or should be rejected or should be issued with modifications. In this case the commissioners, sitting at Peterhead, hearing the arguments put forward, recommended that the order should be confirmed, with some small modifications.
If an order is then issued by the Secretary of State, as it has been in the present case, it is submitted to Parliament in the form of a confirmation Bill, which once approved by Parliament is regarded as a public Act. The Secretary of State's role so far is a formality.
In theory, the Secretary of State could decline to accept the recommendations of the parliamentary commissioners, but it has been the practice to honour the undertaking given during the passage of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1933—consolidated in the 1936 Act—that the Secretary of State would treat such recommendations with the greatest respect and would not, save in exceptional circumstances, set them aside. Therefore, in submitting to Parliament an order which has been the subject of an inquiry, the Secretary of State is not to be regarded as expressing a view on the merits of the order. My right hon. Friend is enabling the appropriate parliamentary procedure to take place.
Mr. Robert Hughes: May I refer the Minister back to the original confirmation Bill. I refer especially to an answer that he gave about the publication of confirmation Bills. He said that he would not normally publish confirmation Bills until such time as a transcript of all the evidence was available to those who had an interest. Why did that procedure not operate in this case? The original confirmation Bill was published some months before the transcript was publicly available.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House that he put a parliamentary question to me on this. He is also right to say that my answer suggested that that was the normal practice—that the transcript of the evidence should be available. I understand that this is not of necessity the case, but it has been the normal practice. Under section 8(3) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, my right hon. Friend is required to introduce a confirming Bill
"as soon as conveniently may be".
Obviously, in those circumstances, where there is some difficulty in getting the transcript—the hon. Gentleman is aware that there were certain difficulties in transcribing—there must be a balance of judgment struck by my hon. Friend to decide when he chooses to introduce the Bill in order to conform to his statutory obligations. It was in the light of that that the Bill was originally introduced by my right hon. Friend in July of this year.
I should make one or two general points. It is our legal practice in this country that those who wish to build harbour works, which might interfere with the rights of others, should have statutory powers, usually quite specific, to do so. In the present case the trustees of the harbours of Peterhead, which is where the fishery traffic

87
is accommodated, wish to extend their harbour facilities to the southward by creating new quays and berthing spaces. I understand that these facilities are intended primarily for commercial, that is non-fishery, traffic. The trustees maintain that these new works will have a beneficial effect also on their handling of fishery traffic. The financing of the proposed works is a matter for the trustees.
The confirmation Bill has been the subject of inquiry by colleagues in this House and from the other place. They have recommended, having listened to the evidence, the order for confirmation by means of a Bill, and it is on that basis and in accordance with precedent that it is before the House tonight.
In relation to the motion to refer to a Joint Committee, perhaps it would help the House if I were to explain the position as I understand it. There is a power under section 9 of the 1936 Act to refer the matter to a Joint Committee, if a petition against the order in the Bill has been presented before the period of seven days after the introduction of a confirmation Bill. I understand that a petition was presented in form and in time by the Aberdeen harbour board.
Although it has been usual not to refer confirmation Bills to a Joint Committee, that practice or precedent was overturned two weeks ago by the decision to refer the Edinburgh Bill to a Joint Committee. It is for the House as a whole to decide what to do in relation to a confirmation Bill under the private legislation procedure, including reference to a Joint Committee. I would not seek to advise or direct the House in that regard. As with the Edinburgh Bill, the Government are neutral, and I trust that the House will accept that we have fulfilled our responsibilities in regard to this Bill.
8.9 pm
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I rise on the insistence of the Dundee port authority to ensure that this matter is fully ventilated. I have had the privilege of visiting Peterhead harbour. I found the trustees' work building up the harbour for fishermen superb. I hope that nothing that we do today will hold up those necessary improvements to make the harbour safer for fishermen.
I should like to put in a cautionary word. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) has already made it clear that there are broader implications in these developments than appear at first sight. The very fact that hon. Members who represent ports throughout the east of Scotland are present suggest that the matter is more controversial than was originally thought.
I do not oppose the general upgrading of Peterhead harbour, but I wonder whether its impact on other east coast ports has been considered properly. There is a question mark over the Commission chaired by Lord Hughes. It is remarkable that, after such a commission of inquiry, several organisations still feel that their arguments have not been examined properly and fairly.
The port of Dundee has a wide variety of harbour facilities which are well suited to the requirements of the types of shipping that could be expected to use the facilities afforded by the proposed works. As the roll on/ roll off proposal has already been struck out by the Hughes Commission, I should like to focus attention on the accommodation and loading of grain vessels with a
88
carrying capacity of 10,000 tonnes. Dundee port authority believes that the proposed work would not generate any new business, but rather that it could erode existing trade at Dundee and other major Scottish ports without contributing to the economy of Scotland as a whole or to that of Grampian and Tayside regions.
The port of Dundee currently exports more then 50,000 tonnes of grain a year in consignments ranging from 2,500 tonnes to 5,000 tonnes. The port owns two grain elevators with a loading capacity of 200 tonnes an hour and a further two elevators with a loading capacity of 80 tonnes an hour. It can accept and load vessels with a 10,000-tonne capacity. Peterhead and Dundee draw such traffic from separate hinterlands, with the exception of grain drawn from intervention stores. It is estimated that, from that source, there will be occasional cargoes from 10,000 tonnes to 15,000 tonnes capacity. That grain will not be collected from a restricted area of about 35 miles from a port, but will be collected from anything up to 150 miles from a port. The subsidy given by the intervention board makes it economic for the haulier to collect from a much greater distance. That is an echo of the grid facility which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East described. The port of Dundee and other major Scottish ports can already cope with the trade. The port's worries remain despite the work of the Hughes commission.
A scheme port has certain financial obligations which by statute it must fulfil. Such obligations do not necessarily arise from the operation of the port. They frequently—and most often do—arise from other ports. The National Dock Labour Board levy for administrative purposes is 2·75 per cent. of the port employer's gross wages and, in addition, there is a severence levy of 4·75 per cent. of the gross wages. Unfortunately, the pattern in our ports recently has been the rundown of manpower. That would happen if Peterhead went ahead without such financial obligations, and it would have an unfair advantage over other ports.
I hope that we do not have to vote down the whole proposal, because there is much in it, such as what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said about the need to take care of fishermen's interests, with which the House agrees. However, we must protect our own people's interests. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned unemployment. I have to tell him that unemployment in Dundee is running at 16·5 per cent. Male unemployment, which includes dock workers, is considerably higher. In view of the general dissatisfaction and the need for a fair hearing, it would be best if the matter went to a Joint Committee of both Houses so that it can be examined with fresh eyes. If the Joint Committee accepts the order, I would accept it. I merely require the matter to be ventilated in the interests of my constituents, so that it is clear that they will not be disadvantaged. We wish Peterhead well.
Mr. McQuarrie: I should like confirmation of what the hon. Gentleman said. Did he say that he would accept the ruling of the Joint Committee?
Mr. Wilson: Yes. My port authority is worried that the matter has not been considered closely enough. If the order is upheld by a Joint Committee, I would accept it and not inhibit the scheme going ahead. In view of the tremendous disquiet in the House and in my area about the proposals, the subject should be referred to a Joint Committee.
8·17 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I respect the views of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). He must put his constituency case strongly. I do not object to that. However, I wish that he would not present the case in such a way as to make it appear that those of us with a strong interest in Aberdeen harbour are not behaving in a proper parliamentary way. We have a right to look after the interests of our own port and to consider the wider issues.
This is not a party issue. I am speaking purely with my constituency hat on as many of my constituents work in Aberdeen harbour or depend for their livelihood on the harbour in one way or another.
There has been some argument about parliamentary procedures and propriety. It seems that people in the Peterhead area have been given the impression that the parliamentary inquiry is the beginning and end of the democratic process and that no other means are open to them. They have been given the impression that they must accept the inquiry's findings and that to challenge them in any way is undemocratic. That is not true.
The inquiry is the beginning of the parliamentary process. Our debate tonight is the second part of that process. Other parliamentary processes follow. Some of the aggravation could have been prevented if the Secretary of State's office had handled the original confirmation Bill properly. The Secretary of State was aware of my interest in the parliamentary inquiry.
So that there should be no doubt about how the Aberdeen harbour board should proceed, and to further its objections, I advised it to write to the Secretary of State to find out how to lodge a petition. The Secretary of State's private secretary wrote to the general manager of the harbour board describing the procedures and explaining how, once the Bill had been published and read the First time, seven days were available to lodge a petition. Because of a strange coincidence, a lapse by the Scottish Civil Service or a deliberate act, the day before the Bill was published the Secretary of State's private secretary wrote to the general manager and neglected to tell him that the Bill was to be published the next day.
One could argue that the Aberdeen harbour board was lax. It did riot imagine that the Bill would be dealt with so quickly. When I was telephoned, only by chance did I look at the Order Paper to discover that the Bill was due for its Second Reading. I had not been advised that the Bill had been published. Perhaps I was lax, because I could have been more vigilant by looking at the Order Paper every day. Whatever the reasons, the normal courtesies were missing, and as a result the opportunity to deal with the matter properly in the last Session was missed.
There is nothing new in Back Benchers seeking to block confirmation Bills and to refer them to Joint Committees. There is nothing new, novel, arrogant or malevolent in that. It is wrong to say that we are seeking selfishly to guard the areas which we represent and to destroy Peterhead's capacity to develop. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We want a development at Peterhead that will satisfy the original objectives, which were to provide a safer harbour and some improved facilities for cargo traffic. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan cannot have it both ways. In his anxiety to show the need for development, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the percentage
90
unemployment for Peterhead compared with Aberdeen. Percentages mean nothing. I accept that the percentage figures for Peterhead are serious. I do not deny that they are much higher than they are for Aberdeen. However, many more people in Aberdeen are unemployed than in Peterhead. It shows the depths to which this Tory Government have driven us that we have to talk about percentages and job losses in Aberdeen compared with Peterhead. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is saying that more people will be employed in Peterhead as a result of the South bay development, it must mean that Peterhead is looking for more traffic.
The hon. Gentleman's attention was diverted earlier during my intervention. Perhaps when he has finished his walk he will listen to what I am saying. The hon. Gentleman said that the Peterhead harbour trustees were not looking for increased traffic. He said that there was a gentleman's agreement not to take oil-related work and that the board did not want to poach grain trade from other ports. The development must be paid for. If the new scheme is to be viable, additional revenue must be raised to pay for it. If increased revenue is not generated by additional traffic, it will be necessary to increase costs to existing port users. If that happens, the first person to be on his feet complaining will be the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, because the fishermen will have to pay more.
Mr. McQuarrie: The Peterhead harbour trustees make £1 million a year profit, mainly from fishing vessels. I made it clear that the development is primarily for fishing vessels. Many fishing vessels would like to use Peterhead harbour as their home port, but are prevented from doing so because of problems within the harbour. The fishing vessels are the main problem, not the grain. An undertaking has been made that no oil-related work will be taken on. In cross-examination, Mr. Buchan made it clear that the harbour trust had enough financial resources and approved backing to provide all the money required for the development.
Mr. Hughes: That last remark might one day haunt some people. We do not know the exact cost of servicing, and we do not know what will happen. There is no doubt that the depth of water required for the proposed development is intended to generate increased traffic. Assumptions about where the cost will fall are serious.
I appreciate why the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan keeps moving round the Chamber, but I would appreciate it if his ideas did not move as well. We are receiving different signals about his intentions later this evening. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said he hoped that he would not be driven to vote against the Bill. I hope that I am not forced to vote against it. The matter is in the hands of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. He is in control of events. On his attitude depends how the Bill proceeds.
I enter a cautionary note. I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I think that if the hon. Gentleman does not proceed far with the Bill this evening he may discover—as he might at Heathrow airport—that the plane has lost its place in the queue for take-off and that there may be a long delay. If the delay is too long, he may lose altogether. He must have a care that he does not lose his place in the queue for take-off and that his objective that the development at

91
Peterhead should come to fruition is not lost because he has misjudged the mood of the House, tactics or the future. He will obviously have to take those into account.
One other matter of real contention is how far the alternative scheme has been considered and the stage of development that it has reached. The hon. Gentleman had a bit of a laugh about the article in The Press and Journal. He said that it published a 3 in square photograph of the development. To ask the House to believe that that was the sole available information on the alternative development is stretching credibility too far. An alternative scheme has been devised and tested on the hydraulic model. It has been found to satisfy the stated objective of the proposed new development. Such a scheme would have been acceptable to all the petitioners, although it fell short of the ideal compromise. That has been under discussion for some time. The fact is, as was admitted in evidence, that the Peterhead harbour trustees have never considered the options, and they have never been put in front of them.
I hope that the matter will not be decided simply on the word of either Mr. McCrea or Mr. Turner. We are not having a gladiatorial contest. This is a serious matter. We have the Peterhead harbour proposed scheme and the alternative schemes on the same scale. They are all produced in exactly the same form. If the matter is to be satisfactorily resolved, by far the best way is to allow a reexamination before a Joint Committee. If that were done, the matter could be examined, counsel could put the case, engineers could be cross-examined about the various schemes and we could come to some objective analysis.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to allow the matter to go to a Joint Committee, where there can be a proper and free examination. That should be done with goodwill, not simply as an exercise to buy time. I know that the hon. Gentleman, like all hon. Members, is an honourable man, so I hope that we can look at the matter seriously. We want to see that reasonable developments are carried out. If those developments are to proceed at the quickest possible rate to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the fishermen, and to the joint satisfaction of those who represent other constituencies, and if a compromise can be agreed on, well and good, but let us have the matter thoroughly thrashed out.
I do not complain that the hon. Gentleman reads the brief that he has been given by the Bill's promoters—that is perfectly fair—just as he, I am sure, would not disagree with my right to put the brief put to me by my constituents. However, he is not in a position, and nor am I, to know for certain about wave heights and all the technical details that he began to go into. I trust Mr. Turner, the manager of Aberdeen harbour board, who is an engineer. There is no harm whatever in the matter being properly examined, and I hope that in everyone's interests the matter will be disposed of in the best possible way. That is in the hands of the hon. Gentleman. I ask him to accept my goodwill and that of others, and I hope that he will take that into account. I hope that Peterhead, too, will take that goodwill into account and will not wake up tomorrow to find that our goodwill has not been taken properly into account, because in the end it is Peterhead that will suffer.
8·35 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to support the Bill. I do so because as a Conservative I believe that competition is good for the customer. As a party we believe that it is right to encourage competition, and that every effort should be made to encourage competition which leads to efficiency and a better service to customers.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) had to say. If I understood him correctly, he was critical of the parliamentary commission. I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was also critical of the way in which the matter had been handled.
It is becoming fashionable this week to criticise bodies that have been set up to conduct inquiries into Scottish affairs. If some hon. Members do not like the decision of a body, whether it is the parliamentary commission or the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, they attempt to have the matter retried. They do not seem to care about the merits of the case and whether they have been examined properly and fully by a parliamentary commission, as in this instance, or by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
I draw your attention to this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the hon. Member for Falkirk, East drew attention to the link between Gartcosh and Grangemouth and the effect that any improvements at Peterhead may or may not have. There is no doubt that that was his clever way—he is good at it and he does it fairly well—of bringing in a topical argument. He and I both know that a parliamentary commission is set up in the knowledge that it is not a high court but an endeavour to find some kind of parliamentary view and the facts.
We may not like what the parliamentary commission has done in this matter. It is true that the chairman of the parliamentary commission was one of the hon. Gentleman's noble friends. One can presume that the hon. Gentleman was unhappy with his noble friend. I imagine that he is equally unhappy with the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
The need to improve the harbour facilities to make the harbour safer for those who presently use it would, I imagine, obtain support from all corners of the House. There seems to be substantive evidence that there are too many boats alongside each other, certainly at weekends, at times when the tidal and wave conditions present a real hazard in the harbour.
Here we have a harbour that is efficient and profitable, making profits of about £1 million a year. That profitable harbour wishes to expand. It is incredible that any Conservative should object to that. We spend so much time in the House considering how we can help the lame ducks of the world and improve their lot, and all too often we do not invest in success. Here is a successful harbour which, by all accounts, is the premier white fish harbour in the United Kingdom. The figures appear to confirm that. There is some common ground in this matter.
Although people may say that there are alternatives, they may not give the trustees the harbour that they want to take them into the next century. An investment of this magnitude is not for this year or next year, but for many decades ahead. It is only right that the trustees should consider changes that may occur, and the ships, directly or indirectly related to fishing, that may wish to use the harbour.

93
People may say that a berth that will take 10,000 tonnes is not necessary. I do not know about that because I am not a professional seaman. Yet if some years ago someone had said to me that the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth would not be plying the high seas today, I would have thought that they were talking nonsense. Those ships appeared to be the last word in seafaring. Who can say which ships will be directly or indirectly connected with fishing in the future?
There have been remarkable changes in the fishing industry. For example, off the west coast ports substantial Soviet vessels are carrying out various activities—I think that "factory ships" is the term used to describe them. I believe that the trustees have been responsible and prudent. I understand that originally they put forward proposals for a roll-on/roll-off facility, but then withdraw it. That does not surprise me because Dundee recently introduced such a facility which, I understand, is not—at this stage—obtaining the business for which it had hoped. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to include that facility at Peterhead—
Mr. Malone: I must put the record straight. The parliamentary commission amended the scheme to remove that facility. It was not removed at the request of the trustees. That puts a wholly different complexion on the matter.
Mr. Walker: I was fishing, and the fish rose to the bait. All that we hear is criticism of the commission. I wanted someone to say something good about it—so I am delighted that it has come from a hostile source.
We are trying to get at the facts, not opinions and views. The fact is that the commission is much maligned. It has no friends. I am doing my best to be friendly, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South for his intervention. I know little about this sort of fishing, but I have experience of other sorts of fishing. I know that if I throw the right bait, a fish will often rise when it is not rising for other bait.
Why are there so many objections to the scheme? It cannot be that there are fears that the harbour will be used by oil supply ships. After all, they are using an adjacent bay. It cannot be because there are fears that Peterborough will steal the fishing business of Aberdeen. We know from what has been said this evening and on other occasions that Aberdeen's fishing business is now 10 per cent. of its total business. Why are we meeting so many problems?
It is surely significant that a neighbouring harbour, Fraserburgh, does not object to the proposals even though it has similar business interests. It is a busy port, not far from Peterhead. The fact that it did not object to the proposals must tell us something. It did not object because it thought that it was a sensible scheme for the busiest port in Scotland.
The fishermen know something about risks and about the way in which they must invest for the future. They are looking to the trustees to provide them with safe harbour facilities. I mean not simply somewhere to put their boats, but all the necessary facilities of the quayside and all the necessary modern equipment that will meet the needs of a modern fishing fleet for the next 10, 20, 30 and 40 years. The proposals can only he beneficial.
Because Peterhead harbour is not part of the dock labour scheme, it is possible that it is looked on unkindly in certain quarters. As a Conservative, that does not worry
94
me because I know that often the places that are not run in a manner that calls for any state supervision or that are not run in a way that suits out-of-date doctrine, are much better at doing the job. There are examples of that along the east coast. If Peterhead is to become an even greater success story than it is, I for one believe that this House should clearly say that the Bill commands our support on the merits of the case.
I do not ask the House to support the Bill on the basis of opinion. I do not suggest that it supports the Bill because the trustees will consult the regional authority about roads and so on. Everyone knows that, at the end of the day, the scheme must obtain planning permission, and regional authority support must be given for road networks. There is nothing odd about that—it happens with almost every project. Even the great design schemes of the Scottish Development Agency and other bodies require the co-operation, help—
Mr. Ewing: Not the enterprise zones.
Mr. Walker: I was very careful not to mention enterprise zones. I know something about the enterprise zone in Dundee. I shall not rise to the hon. Gentleman's bait—he cannot land me with that.
I accept that planning permission is not always required, and in some areas planning permission is simply a courtesy. Even if it is not granted, the scheme will still go ahead. However, Peterhead does not fall into that category. A proposal is being brought forward in the normal way, under the procedures by which we make changes to harbours. Even if the House agrees to the proposal, which I hope it does, the local authorities must be consulted to ensure that the scheme is in accordance with what they wish. I have no reason to think that Grampian regional authority is any different from Tayside, with which I deal and which is always helpful towards private enterprise schemes.
There have been suggestions that Peterhead is wrong to seek to engage in anything other than fishing activities. However, Peterhead has already become an important port for the export of grain and other bulk cargoes. Why should it not export those goods if it is the port that customers want to use? That is the important point. There is another small port on the east coast of Scotland, at Perth, which is no longer in my constituency. That port is also interesting. It was developed against the trend because it is well up river, but customers wanted to make use of it.
Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason why Peterhead has expanded its grain trade is that the people in the hinterland find it the most accessible port, and that they are saved the 35-mile journey to Aberdeen port if they can go to Peterhead or Fraserburgh, which is the adjoining port in my constituency?
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend and I would not argue about choice, and customers being able to choose which port they want to use.
In any other area, if a successful organisation has generated capital and wishes to invest it and expand, there would normally be crowds of people demanding that we allow it. In Scotland, we want firms that provide employment and create export opportunities. If any firm came to the House and said, "We are not looking for public money. We generate profits and from them we can find the

95
necessary finance to go ahead with our programme," I would be surprised if many hon. Members spoke against it.
What, then, makes harbours different? Historically, we have dealt with harbours differently from other industrial areas. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East shakes his head, but I cannot think of many instances where the House considers legislation of this sort.
Mr. Ewing: I was trying to restrain myself from interrupting the hon. Gentleman. In this case, the difference is that the Peterhead trustees want to develop an area which they do not own. We do not need to deal with other harbour extensions, improvements or expansions in this way in any other part of Scotland, because the port authorities own the area that they wish to develop. The hon. Gentleman is missing the major point that the Peterhead trustees want to develop an area which they do not own.
Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention which spells out the matter clearly. However, I hope that he will agree that I was saying that harbours have been treated differently historically, and that we are considering a successful operation which wants to expand into an adjacent area. There is nothing wrong with that. Airports do it all the time and railway stations have done it. There are precedents, although not in recent times. At one time special legislation was needed to deal with railway stations and lines.
Similarly, we are considering a successful harbour run by trustees who wish to provide a better service for those in the hinterland, and to invest in facilities in the quayside that will provide modern grain-loading equipment of the highest order. The harbour board sees wooden-hulled and steel-hulled vessels siting along the quay wall in conditions that create hazards for the hulls, particularly wooden hulls. One does not have to be clever to realise that in some conditions hulls become vulnerable, and that that is not wise because harbours are supposed to be places of safety.
If one links that with the bulk and the grain facilities, it is clear that the harbour board's proposals, which have been examined by the parliamentary commissioners, are realistic and should be accepted. They will get rid of the congestion at present in the harbour, will provide better loading facilities, and will generally make the harbour better for the customers—the fishing vessel owners who want to use Peterhead harbour. I hope that the House will view the matter on its merits, and not from a narrow constituency point of view because that is not in the best interests of private interests or customers.
8·54 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As I represent an area between Aberdeen and Peterhead, I have constituents who work at both ports and I have people interested in both harbours. My remarks seek to secure the best balanced development of the ports in north-east Scotland. I do not wish to see any port seriously held back from development.
At this stage, there is sufficient cause for anxiety to warrant a reference to a Joint Committee of both Houses
96
of Parliament. Indeed, a letter from the British Ports Association to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) makes the point succinctly. It states:
"The British Ports Association do not wish to express any views about the merits of this Bill or the issues raised in the enclosed statement"
from the Aberdeen Harbour Board.
"They do, however, suggest that it is most unfortunate that a responsible harbour authority should feel so strongly that the arguments against the development proposed in the Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Development) Order have not received a fair hearing. For that reason, we would ask you to consider whether it would not be expedient for the Aberdeen Harbour Board's petition to be referred to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament so that this difficult matter can be looked at again."
That is the view of most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Clearly, there is a serious point at issue which must be resolved.
The simple statement of the entrenched position of the extremes of either side will not bring the matter forward. A fair and reasonable assessment that there is a genuine difficulty must be made. The detailed submission from the Aberdeen Harbour Board does not merely take issue with points of fact, but shows an element of bitterness, which the House would wish to address properly. In one or two areas, the board feels that it has legitimate grievances which have not been fully dealt with.
Much has been made of the cost. An investment in excess of £13 million is no little sum, especially if that sum is merely to achieve the creation of a safe, less crowded harbour for fishing boats. No one will deny that investment is needed to secure safety and more space, but £13 million-plus is a great deal of money simply for that.
There are two ways to repay that investment. The first, on which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has already touched, is that the users of the ports and the trustees will have to raise money to repay capital. Two obvious ways can be used. One is to ensure that the greater efficiency in the fishing harbour results in the generation of more revenue from fishing. It is probably asking a lot to think that that will be enough to fulfil the whole cost. What is more, there is concern that the fishing boat owners will find that their costs rise significantly to pay off the costs of the capital.
Much more likely is that the Peterhead harbour authority, having got excellent facilities with a wide range of versatile and alternative uses, will go out to get in extra traffic to generate the extra revenue. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has rightly pointed out the success of Peterhead harbour in attracting other traffic. I am pleased to see that success and if I were persuaded that this scale of development is needed to enable the essential and normal development of the harbour, I might accept it.
However, a compromise has been proposed that will meet all the potential expansion needs of the growing traffic through Peterhead without creating a major new harbour on the east coast that will be in competition immediately not only with Fraserburgh and Aberdeen but with Montrose, Dundee and the Forth ports. It is worth reiterating what the EEC's findings were. The official journal for 31 January said that the port facilities in north-east Scotland already have surplus capacity and utilisation of the existing facilities is only around 50 per cent. It clearly points to one port going ahead only at another's expense, and it questions the contribution of new port projects to the region as a whole.

97
A question has to be asked and answered. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will no doubt have a positive answer. The question is where, if the expanded Peterhead harbour goes for new business, it will come from. If it is to come from new business that is not available to the existing ports, a closer investigation would wish to consider that. If, on the other hand, it simply draws it away from the other ports in the area, a major investment that does not create new employment or benefit has been made.
Mr. McQuarrie: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to make the case that the EEC has decided that there should be no further increase in facilities at ports in the north-east of Scotland, can he relate that to Mr. Turner's evidence to the commission that, for the next 10 years, Aberdeen harbour will spend millions of pounds in developing its facilities?
Mr. Bruce: There are two distinct points. I was quoting the EEC, but what is happening in Aberdeen harbour—I recently visited and toured both harbours—is investment in improving existing quays, clearing buildings, putting in better facilities and reorganising existing facilities to meet modern needs and technologies. The two things are mutually exclusive. I make it clear that I am not suggesting that there is no case for anything to happen at Peterhead harbour and that it should not be allowed to make investment to improve its facilities. Every hon. Member who has spoken recognised that Peterhead is ready to expand in that way. There is a difference in scale, timing and implication of these proposals.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North alluded only briefly to the existence of the dock labour scheme. This is not the time or place to discuss the scheme at any great length. However, the hon. Member said that the development should be encouraged on the ground that it creates competition. Whether or not we like it, the dock labour scheme is a restraint on competition. It matters not what a person's political views are—we have to accept that the basis of the dock labour scheme was to guarantee dockers work, and that ensures that the scheme ports have a cost. If the scheme exists, we have to accept that it is the basis of operation. Nothing will be done about it, but both the commissioners and the House should take notice of it.
Mr. Ewing: It is important to put on record the purpose of the national dock labour scheme. It was introduced in 1944 to replace the old casual labour scheme whereby men went to the docks in the morning and were sent back up the road with no work within half an hour. The scheme does not exclude competition—far from it, it guarantees the men a day's work and wage and replaces the casual labour scheme under which they had no such guarantee.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) but, as I said earlier, I do not think that this is the time to develop that point. However, I accept his contribution for the record. My point is that a port scheme port has a different basis of operation than a non-port scheme port. Given that a parliamentary commission is investigating the developments in a non-scheme port, it is legitimate to recognise its impact on other ports that are not operated on the same basis. I want the ports in the area to be developed, but the development of one port at the expense of another needs to be examined closely.
98
The Aberdeen harbour board's submission points to the extent to which it feels that its case has not been given a fair hearing and to the fact that its arguments have not been fully developed. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was somewhat dismissive of the Aberdeen harbour board's compromise proposals. I do not presume to comment in detail on their merits, nor am I qualified to do so. However, I take seriously the submissions of a body that has been involved in port engineering for more than 40 years and that puts forward a scheme as a serious, constructive alternative. Such a scheme is worthy of consideration and it was put forward, I know, in good faith.
It would not be wrong to say that the Aberdeen harbour board would prefer Peterhead to do nothing at all; it would prefer no development to take place at Peterhead. That is not my view and I do not believe that it is the view of most hon. Members who are taking part in the debate. However, the board recognised that that view was unlikely to carry very much weight. It was too introspective and too self-interested. Therefore, it recognised from the outset that at best it would need to secure a compromise. However, it feels that the Peterhead harbour commissioners have not been willing to respond to its compromise proposals.
It states that the promoters have put forward a scheme which, if it were fully utilised, would allow them to compete with Aberdeen in all the major areas of port activity in which Aberdeen is concerned, not just in those areas where there is a small overlap. For example, it pointed out that one part of the new scheme could be used as an oilfield supply base. My understanding is that the Peterhead harbour trustees have said that that is true but that they would be prepared to give an honourable undertaking not to use it as an oilfield supply base.
There are two problems. If my earlier point about the financial pressure on Peterhead turned out to be true and the expansion of the North sea activities that is hoped for in the future were to continue, the temptation might become too strong and, if it were there and had the potential, the facility would be used. The Aberdeen harbour board said that a binding agreement that the facility would not be used would be acceptable to it, if it underpinned the gentleman's agreement that the Peterhead harbour trustees were prepared to give. However, it was unable to secure a binding agreement. Therefore it is left with a nagging concern that at some stage or another the entrance to the inner harbour at Peterhead will be used as another supply base. Peterhead is a major competitor of Aberdeen as an oil field supply base. Indeed, the south side of the Peterhead Bay of Refuge is probably the best oilfield supply base in the country, as it was custom built. Therefore, this is a point of legitimate concern.
The point at issue on the specific compromise proposals is that the harbour board feels that the proposals have been dismissed. I said earlier that the Aberdeen harbour board would probably prefer the Bill to be stopped altogether. During the next few minutes the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) will have to consider on behalf of his constituents whether he wants the Bill to be killed or whether he wants a compromise to be secured. That is the danger he runs. It is important that he should seek to represent his constituents and to use his judgment and parliamentary skills in deciding how to secure the best outcome for his constituents.
The point that was made about the compromise proposal was that it was put forward by those who know

99
something about harbours. They believe that it could meet all of the Peterhead harbour trustees' objectives. It would be considerably cheaper but it would not create a port that offered the same threat to the existence of other ports in the area as it is believed that the proposed development will pose. Although this scheme was discussed, it was never fully considered, and the chairman of the Peterhead trustees is on record as saying:
"Peterhead Harbour Trustees have never considered these options, they have never been put in front of Peterhead Harbour Trustees."
That alone warrants a referral of the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, because that alternative needs to be looked at before we can be sure which is the right and fair scheme that should go ahead.
These proposals should not be viewed in terms of Aberdeen versus Peterhead. I would not be representing the interests of my constituents if I supported such a duel, because I have constituents who work at both ports. My wish and objective is to see two strong, healthy, expanding ports to the north and south of my constituency. To that extent I do not wish my remarks to be judged in terms of Aberdeen versus Peterhead.
The harbour board in Aberdeen is dearly anxious to secure a compromise. Most hon. Members who have spoken want to see a Joint Committee examining this matter. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan holds out for the whole Bill, he runs the serious risk of getting no Bill at all. That is also the risk that the trustees run. The hon. Gentleman should make his own judgments on behalf of his constituents and should recognise that there is good will for Peterhead harbour on all sides of the House. There is a desire for a fair and just outcome. I hope that he will take that on board and will support reference to a Joint Committee.
9·12 pm
Mr. Gerald Malone: It is worth considering referral to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I should put it clearly on the record that, although I have a close constituency interest in this matter, no campaign is being waged either by myself or the Aberdeen harbour board to kill the Bill. Indeed, the Aberdeen harbour board has always been prepared to talk about compromises and it has put forward an alternative scheme.
The sad truth has been that for their own reasons, and perhaps acting on their own best advice, the Peterhead harbour board trustees have decided not even to talk. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) should bear in mind that this compromise has been offered and that it could best be discussed in a Joint Committee of both Houses.
On an occasion such as this, when there is such an overwhelming expression of the views of hon. Members, and when this is perhaps the best device by which to settle the issues between the parties, it would be unfortunate if that avenue of approach were not accepted by my hon. Friend.
Opposition Members are right to say that this matter broadly lies in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. If he is unable to tell me that he would like to adopt that line of approach, I would accept that because it is not my wish that the Bill should not get a Second Reading. However, Opposition Members will be
100
only too well aware that the procedures of the House are such that one is perhaps obliged to adopt a line of approach that is not ideal in all the circumstances.
I repeat to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan that the matter is in his hands and nobody else's. He has to represent not only one section of the community in his constituency; he ably and vociferously represents all points of view. However, some expressions of opinion in his constituency have not been in favour of the scheme.
There has been much disquiet about the way in which the parliamentary commission conducted its proceedings. When worries have been expressed on the Floor of the House, publicly and in the media it is important and proper that the House should consider the substance of those complaints and should consider the request for a referral to a Joint Committee. I do not suggest that, because we have to search far back into history for one example of a referral and to last week for another, we should simply say that the procedure should not be brought into play or that the practice has fallen into desuetude. Perhaps it is a shame that it has not been used more often to consider matters of this kind. There is genuine disquiet about the way in which the parliamentary commission conducted its affairs and that disquiet centres on several points.
Some of the implications of the inquiry's report were a little strange, as were the imputations cast on some of the evidence. One point that has not been raised in any detail is safety, which was considered by the commission. Important evidence on behalf of the Department of Transport was given by Captain Fellingham. I do not understand Lord Hughes' statement when he says:
"We took into account the report of the Department of Transport and the statement of Captain Fellingham which unlike the evidence of other witnesses was neither made on oath nor subject to cross-examination."
That would appear to impugn the captain's evidence. However, what is not explained is that that is the normal procedure when departmental representatives give evidence to parliamentary commissions. Some aspersion has been cast on the fact that Captain Fellingham properly did not submit himself to examination and properly did not go on oath. If there was an impugnment of his evidence, and there would appear to have been so if one reads the statement of the noble Lord, we are right to consider whether that coloured the commissioners' judgment when they reached their conclusions. I suggest that it should not have done so.
Opposition Members have already mentioned the tour of Peterhead harbour by members of the commission and the fact that there was no opportunity for others to cross-examine on that evidence and no other representatives were present. It is odd that a parliamentary commission seeking to take evidence and to be independent should proceed in that way. A procedure that is akin to the tour of Peterhead harbour and is common practice in court proceedings in Scotland is known as a view. Some hon. Members will be familiar with that procedure. If the sheriff or those trying the case decide that it is important to examine the locus, all parties traipse off to the view. They go to see what the facts are on the ground or, as in this case, in the water.
In that judicial process, all parties and their representatives must be present. If that criterion is considered essential by the courts, a similar procedure

101
should have been seriously considered by the commissioners. Perhaps they did not take a completely independent line when considering one of the most important pieces of evidence.
Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House. He said that objectors and their counsel were not allowed to take part in the tour by the Commission. In fact, all the objectors and their counsel took part in the tour of the area of the proposed works.
Mr. Malone: I must disagree with my hon. Friend; that is not my information. We must judge the sources of the information put to the House, but representatives of Aberdeen harbour have made the point vigorously to me and it seems to have been made vigorously to Opposition Members. My hon. Friend did not challenge the point when it was made by, I think, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and it is odd that he should choose to challenge it now.
My hon. Friend has an opportunity to concur with the will of the House, which is to have the matter investigated further. I do not intend to kill the Bill, but my hon. Friend must know the procedural risks that he is running. He would not be happy if he had to say that the Bill had been lost. I concede that the Peterhead harbour trustees are perhaps entitled to their legislation in an amended form and I should be sorry to see the opportunity lost.
The Court of Auditors of the European Commission reported in 1984 on the investment of about £15 million of European funds in port facilities throughout Scotland, and particularly in the north-east, over the previous 10 years. In its report to the Commission, the court said that port facilities in the north-east of Scotland were 50 per cent. under-used. The Commission had been investing not in port facilities that were necessary to cope with existing traffic or in port facilities that might be needed in the foreseeable future, but in port facilities which were substantially redundant. That fact is abundantly clear.
Not only European funds have been invested in ports in the north-east of Scotland. A substantial number of harbours in the area are maintained and supported by Grampian regional council, to the tune of £400,000 a year. In examining the economic case put by the promoters, we have to consider whether the facilities already provided in the north-east, substantially by public funds, will be used even less than they are at present.
I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). If the Peterhead harbour trustees decide that they will spend this money and put forward this proposal, good luck to them. The trustees say, "Of course, it is our money. There will be no further call on public funds."
I draw the attention of the House to the history of this matter, because we need to go beyond the past six or seven months to note the intent of the Peterhead harbour trustees. When the proposals were initially considered, the Peterhead harbour trustees wanted a substantial injection of public cash to make the project possible. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan will not mind if I refer again to that well-known national organ, that most worthy paper, that accurate reporter of local matters in the constituency of my hon. Friend, the Buchan Observer, which has been quoted so lavishly with great success. An article on 11 September 1984 stated:
"Aid refusal angers harbour board".
102
Of course the Peterhead harbour board trustees were not looking in September 1984 to fund the project from private funds—they were looking for public funds of £12 million, which they were not given by the Scottish Office. That was right. Mr. Buchan, the chairman of the Peterhead harbour board, reacted by saying:
"No way can we accept this without kicking up a helluva row about it."
I am surprised that the board was not relying on private funding then and I suspect that it is not relying on the prospect of private funding now.
Mr. Bill Walker: Surely my hon. Friend must write this down as a success for the Conservative Government. Is this not what we have been trying to do for so long—stop people bleeding the public purse? Yet my hon. Friend is complaining!
Mr. Malone: I am certainly not complaining about that. I believe that, if the scheme is approved, we shall not have heard the last of the claims on the public purse for support. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North would agree that, if these funds were required in September 1984, they may inevitably be required again. I hope that my hon. Friend, who seems to know so much about this matter, will bear in mind the fact that the first time the Peterhead harbour board trustees called for a detailed economic analysis to be made public on this matter was April 1985 when a Coopers and Lybrand report was prepared and submitted in evidence. It is odd that a scheme that has been more than a gleam in the trustees' eyes for a substantial period should suddenly be subjected to a form of economic analysis.
Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to give the wrong impression about the Coopers and Lybrand report. I am sure that he will accept that the Peterhead harbour trustees were obliged to obtain a report from Coopers and Lybrand because the public inquiry had not been presented with anything on the subject of development.
Mr. Malone: The trustees were required to obtain a report because, until then, they had no idea of their economic case, except that they were looking for grants of £12 million from public funds. The Coopers and Lybrand report, which is a rather strange and scanty document containing many highly conditional conclusions and an economic analysis that is highly conditional with respect to much of the revenue that the trustees say will accrue if the changes are successful, is a little unlikely to prove true. It gives the game away, because, no matter how much my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan may say that the primary purpose of the development at Peterhead harbour is to improve the lot of fishermen, increase the safety of the fishing vessels and provide them with a safer harbour, if he reads the report he will find in one of the appendices of the economic analysis that the trustees are counting on increased revenue from cargoes brought into Peterhead harbour to fund the scheme if it were to be granted. It may have been represented to my hon. Friend that the main interest was to improve the lot of the fishing fleet. Of course, Peterhead harbour will look for more business beyond what it says is the purpose of the scheme—it will not look just for increased cargoes.
A gentleman's agreement was offered by Aberdeen harbour board when Mr. Turner gave evidence to the

103
parliamentary commission. He said that he would be perfectly happy to accept an undertaking that there will be no increase in oil-related activities in Peterhead harbour. The commissioners decided to ignore that and hoped that Mr. Turner and the Aberdeen harbour board trustees would simply rely on the gentlemen's agreement. The Coopers and Lybrand report suggests that the Peterhead harbour board trustees are looking to go further than they say they intend, and I also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan that in the circumstances it is difficult for Aberdeen harbour board trustees to attach tremendous credibility to any statement that the Peterhead harbour board trustees may make about the credibility of relying on a so-called gentlemen's agreement.
Mr. Donald Stewart: In fairness to the trustees, surely the hon. Gentleman does not think that any harbour board would construct a harbour and confine it to fishing vessels. Obviously, it will go out of its way to make it as viable as possible. Whatever the arguments against the board may be, surely it cannot be faulted on those grounds.
Mr. Malone: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I accept that, if the proposal goes through, the board will use all its facilities as much as it can. The board is saying that that is not so. That is the point that I am trying to make.
What the board is seeking in the Bill goes way beyond any reasonable assumption of what it might require. I was interested to note that it has decided to seek a power to dredge in excess of 1·5 m more than it was seeking when the case was put before the parliamentary commissioners. We have to look carefully at the proposal. In Peterhead harbour it would be possible to berth the largest vessels if the power that the board is seeking in the Bill were exercised. There is no need for that. The board goes beyond its stated aim, and that is one more fact that suggests that it does not intend to stick to its declared intentions.
When the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) intervened, I was about to refer to the goodwill of Aberdeen harbour board. On its behalf, I must rebut the suggestion that has been made in the House that it has been intransigent and has not been prepared to listen, and put forward an alternative scheme in the most casual manner. An article in The Press and Journal and a small sketch were referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. I say this with no malice to him, but I should like him to hear it. Aberdeen harbour board put forward the suggestion, in detail, to its counterparts in Peterhead, or at least it attempted to do so, and met with a rebuff. When I intervened in my hon. Friend's speech, I said that it was my impression that a meeting had taken place with Mr. Turner of the Aberdeen harbour board—
Mr. McQuarrie rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 53.

Division No. 27]

[9.35 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Aspinwall, Jack

Alton David

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Amess, David

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Ancram, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

104

Blackburn, John

Jessel, Toby

Body, Richard

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Bottomley, Peter

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

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

Kennedy, Charles

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Kirkwood, Archy

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Knox, David

Bruce, Malcolm

Lambie, David

Bruinvels, Peter

Lang, Ian

Bryan, Sir Paul

Latham, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Lawrence, Ivan

Buck, Sir Antony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Butler, Rt Hon Adam

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Butterfill, John

Lord, Michael

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

McCrindle, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Cash, William

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Maclean, David John

Conway, Derek

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Coombs, Simon

Malins, Humfrey

Cope, John

Marlow, Antony

Corrie, John

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Crouch, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Dicks, Terry

Monro, Sir Hector

Dorrell, Stephen

Moynihan, Hon C.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Murphy, Christopher

Durant, Tony

Neale, Gerrard

Evennett, David

Newton, Tony

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Normanton, Tom

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Oppenheim, Phillip

Fookes, Miss Janet

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Fox, Marcus

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Freeman, Roger

Pawsey, James

Freud, Clement

Portillo, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Price, Sir David

Gower, Sir Raymond

Rifkind, Malcolm

Greenway, Harry

Roe, Mrs Marion

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Ground, Patrick

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Thurnham, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Waddington, David

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Wainwright, R.

Harris, David

Wallace, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Waller, Gary

Hickmet, Richard

Warren, Kenneth

Hind, Kenneth

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Hirst, Michael

Wilson, Gordon

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Winterton, Nicholas

Howells, Geraint

Wood, Timothy

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hunter, Andrew

Mr. Albert McQuarrie and

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Mr. Bill Walker.

Jackson, Robert

NOES

Barnett, Guy

Ewing, Harry

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Bermingham, Gerald

Fisher, Mark

Boyes, Roland

Foster, Derek

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

George, Bruce

Caborn, Richard

Hardy, Peter

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Haynes, Frank

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Home Robertson, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Clelland, David Gordon

John, Brynmor

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lamond, James

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Corbyn, Jeremy

McCartney, Hugh

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Dalyell, Tam

McWilliam, John

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Madden, Max

Dixon, Donald

Marek, Dr John

Eadie, Alex

Maxton, John

Eastham, Ken

Maynard, Miss Joan

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Michie, William

105

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Patchett, Terry

Torney, Tom

Pike, Peter

Winnick, David

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Rogers, Allan

Tellers for the Noes:

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Mr. Robert Hughes and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Gerald Malone.

Strang,Gavin

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Question put:—That the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 87.

Division No. 28]

[9.50 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Barnett, Guy

Hanley, Jeremy

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Hardy, Peter

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

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Bermingham, Gerald

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Boyes, Roland

Home Robertson, John

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Howells, Geraint

Caborn, Richard

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

John, Brynmor

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Kirkwood, Archy

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Lamond, James

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

McCartney, Hugh

Clelland, David Gordon

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

McWilliam, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Madden, Max

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Malone, Gerald

Dalyell, Tam

Marek, Dr John

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Maxton, John

Deakins, Eric

Maynard, Miss Joan

Dixon, Donald

Michie, William

Douglas, Dick

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Eadie, Alex

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Eastham, Ken

Patchett, Terry

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Pike, Peter

Ewing, Harry

Radice, Giles

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Rogers, Allan

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Fisher, Mark

Skinner, Dennis

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Spearing, Nigel

Freud, Clement

Strang, Gavin

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

George, Bruce

Wainwright, R.

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Wallace, James

106

Winnick, David

Mr. Gordon Wilson and

Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

Tellers for the Ayes:

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Amess, David

Holt, Richard

Arnold, Tom

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

Aspinwall, Jack

Hunter, Andrew

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Jessel, Toby

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Blackburn, John

Kennedy, Charles

Body, Richard

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

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

Knox, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Lambie, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Latham, Michael

Bruinvels, Peter

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Bryan, Sir Paul

Lord, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Buck, Sir Antony

Maclean, David John

Butler, Rt Hon Adam

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Butterfill, John

McQuarrie, Albert

Carttiss, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Cash, William

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Conway, Derek

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Coombs, Simon

Monro, Sir Hector

Corrie, John

Moynihan, Hon C.

Crouch, David

Normanton, Tom

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Oppenheim, Phillip

Dicks, Terry

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Dorrell, Stephen

Pawsey, James

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Powley, John

Evennett, David

Price, Sir David

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Rhodes James, Robert

Favell, Anthony

Rifkind, Malcolm

Fookes, Miss Janet

Roe, Mrs Marion

Fox, Marcus

Speed, Keith

Freeman, Roger

Spencer, Derek

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gower, Sir Raymond

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Greenway, Harry

Thurnham, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Waller, Gary

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Warren, Kenneth

Hanley, Jeremy

Winterton, Nicholas

Harris, David

Hickmet, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

Hind, Kenneth

Mr. Bill Walker and

Hirst, Michael

Mr. Christopher Murphy.

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Question accordingly negatived.
To be further considered upon Wednesday 18 December.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Education (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maude.]

Orders of the Day

  Education (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

  INCREASE OF LIMIT ON EXPENDITURE APPROVED FOR EDUCATION SUPPORT GRANT PURPOSES
  10·2 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out '1 per cent.' and add '.75 per cent.'.
  The Chairman: With this we shall discuss amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 11, at end add 'in 1986–87 and 0·5 per cent. thereafter'.
  Mr. Bennett: At this time of night the Committee will not want to spend long on the measure. The Bill is difficult to amend. Our main complaint is that it is irrelevant to the needs of the education service.
  The Government must come up with a solution to the problem of teachers' pay and morale. The Opposition's most bitter complaint is that the Government are being provocative by introducing the measure at this time.
  Our amendment is intended to probe the Government about their proposals. Amendment No. 2, which has not been selected, would seek to leave out the words "1 per cent." and insert "1·5 per cent." We do not favour the insertion of ".75 per cent." rather than "1 per cent." or any other figure, but we want to probe the Government about their intentions.
  I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to make it clear that they are looking for a solution to the teachers' dispute and are not further provoking them, thus making them angry and disillusioned. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government do not intend to be even more provocative by introducing merit money without the teachers' agreement. If he does that, he will further anger and disillusion the teachers. Before he goes much further with the idea of merit money, he should look carefully at the response that will come from parents who will want to know what compensation the Government will give to their sons or daughters, or to them as parents, if a child finds that in his passage through primary or secondary school he is not taught by any teacher who is receiving merit money.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the amendment.
  Mr. Bennett: Yes, I accept that I am a little wide of the amendment, but I hope that the Government will tell
  108
  us that they will not come forward with such unilateral measures. I had hoped that the Government would pursue an independent inquiry.
  The first time that I was involved in industrial action was in the early 1960s when teachers questioned whether lunchtime supervision was compulsory.
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey rose—
  Mr. Bennett: Let me develop my case a little further.
  As a result of that action, it was clearly established that lunchtime supervision was voluntary. Ever since then, the first stage in the withdrawal of good will has been to question lunchtime supervision. I also accept that many teachers have sought to get rid of the necessity to volunteer to carry out any lunchtime supervision.
  What happens at lunchtime should be examined much more thoroughly than is possible under the Bill. Given the amount of money to which the amendment refers, it is not clear whether the Government have thought that out. If teachers do supervision at lunchtime, almost the only payment is the possibility of a free school meal. Who qualifies for a free meal and what school activities should be carried out vary from one authority to another.
  I also accept that since the 1960s more and more local authorities have employed people to do lunchtime supervision which usually covers supervision of the meal, the playground and around the school buildings. The only person who has a legal duty, other than the employed supervisors, for discipline and behaviour within the school is the head teacher and, to a certain extent, the deputy. Considerable resentment has been caused by the fact that since May nearly all lunchtime supervision has fallen on head teachers, their deputies and the paid supervisors, if the local authority employs such people.
  The Government are now introducing a new proposal which would be welcomed by teachers' unions if it were being introduced during a period in which there was goodwill in schools when teachers were happy with their pay and conditions. In introducing it against a background of lack of co-operation from the teachers the Government will cause far more problems.
  I think that everyone would agree that it is important that teachers have a proper break at lunchtime. Many people would say that during the past nine months teaching has improved because most teachers have had a proper break at lunchtime. It is important that teachers get half an hour or so at lunchtime, but in the good schools many school activities should be flourishing during the lunchtime. Schools with a long lunch break allow the teacher to have a break and also be involved in supervision. The Bill fails to address itself to the real problems of what is supervision and what is teaching during the lunchtime period.
  The Government chose to put 1 per cent. in the clause and the amount of money that that represented, but they do not seem to have thought carefully about the difference between lunchtime teaching and supervision.
  Is it the Government's intention that teachers, or anyone else, should be paid for carrying out educational duties at lunchtime? Examples of that are choir practice, preparation for school pantomime, various club activities, examination revision, sports practice and so on. If those educational activities are managed well, a large number of pupils will participate and therefore receive supervision during the lunch break.

  109
  If teachers are not paid for those educational duties, it is possible that they will not resume them when the dispute has ended. I hope that those activities will be resumed, but the authorities must state clearly the possible uses of the money provided for in the Bill, and the relationship between those looking after pupils and those carrying out educational duties.
  Is it the Government's intention that teachers should be able to claim for carrying out those educational duties? If so, what is the position if those same duties are carried out not at lunchtime but, for example, after school? It would be a major anomaly if a teacher could claim payment for supervising a choir practice at lunchtime but not for supervising after school. The Government must make that clear; they must specify what they regard as being or not being lunchtime supervision.
  Will there be a standard minimum rate of pay under the Bill, especially for lunchtime supervision carried out by people other than teachers? The position of the head teacher and deputy head teacher must also be made clear. Will the head teacher still be responsible at all times if supervisors are employed? To what degree can that responsibility be passed on to a deputy head teacher? If the head teacher and deputy head teacher are not on the school premises—and this applies especially in primary schools—can a teacher act for them, and if so, will he be paid?
  I hope that the Government have seriously considered whether the money provided for in the Bill will be genuine new educational money. Are the Government hoping that, in practice, that money will be offset by, for example, savings in supplementary benefit through the employment of part-time or casual staff? I am not suggesting that it is not desirable that people receiving supplementary benefit should, instead, have a job that provides them with a wage. I merely suggest that if that is the case, the money provided for in the Bill will not be genuine new money.
  Do the Government envisage older pupils being employed for supervisory duties, and especially the use of sixth-formers in primary schools? I am sure that the Government are aware that older pupils are encouraged to work in shops. If the Government's Sunday trading proposals become law, there will be even greater pressure for pupils to work at weekends. It might be more desirable that pupils be employed in their schools or in junior schools rather than in shops that might press them to work longer hours, to the detriment of their studies.
  What will happen in the small number of schools that have adopted a continental or short stay? Can any of the money be used to pay those carrying out supervisory duties after school? Many parents, especially those with young children, will face problems if schools decide to close at 3 pm or earlier.
  Finally, before the measure is implemented the Minister must get agreement between the teacher unions and the local authorities so that there is some uniformity of provision across the country. I hope that he will answer some of my questions when he justifies the need for 1 per cent.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Clement Freud: I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that this is an irrelevant and bad
  110
  Bill. My amendment is a probing amendment. To be specific in my opposition to the Bill, I shall give three good reasons for the two amendments tabled and selected.
  The first relates to the general dissatisfaction at the further inroads into the autonomy of local education authorities. On Second Reading and throughout the passage of the original legislation it was made clear that the Opposition did not dislike the idea of the Secretary of State having powers to fund his pet projects. We disliked the fact that that money should come from LEA funding, which is already earmarked for specific purposes, and which further erodes the ability of an LEA to impose a modicum of regional excellence on its programme. For that reason alone, it seems desirable to restrict such encroachment. If the Secretary of State wants to have separate contracts for lunchtime supervisors, he should pay for it from Government money, not money already earmarked.
  My second reason for tabling the amendment is the confusion that persists after Second Reading about the money that will be used for supervision. The Government have still not satisfactorily explained why they can both pay for lunchtime supervision from the increased education support grant, and knock £40 million of the £1·25 billion offered to the teachers. On Second Reading the Minister said that the money came from sums
  "additional to our existing plans for educational spending."
  I accept that the Government will pay for some of the supervision under the formula for ESG, but I do not accept that that means that £40 million should be clawed back from the £1·25 billion, because, as I understand it, that is the total to be spent and includes the LEA element. Will the Minister clarify that point?
  Thirdly, there is a good case for applying the increase in ESG to the first full year only. The Secretary of State admits that there is spare money from the ESG this year, which is why he can pay for lunchtimes until April from the existing 0·5 per cent. He made that clear on Second Reading when he said:
  "In 1985–86 there is sufficient headroom within the existing limit to pay grant on this new activity."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 460–479.]
  One wonders whether the same will be true in future or, at least, whether there will be some spare to render excessive the full 1 per cent.
  When that fact is added to the claim that future years' payments will come from the 1·25 billion, we have justified cause for anxiety. Added to that financial question is the fact that to pass the Bill in its present form seems to anticipate failure on the part of local authorities.
  We know that lunchtime supervision has been a bone of contention for a long time, but it seems dubious to pass a Bill when the negotiations are in abeyance and there is a possibility, albeit remote, of new machinery to deal with lunchtimes without this expedient.
  The amendments matter because it is wrong to give a Secretary of State yet more control over local authorities for more and for longer than is absolutely necessary. It gives power in a way which gives more power than a good man should need or a bad man should have. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am puzzled as to why the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) should describe this measure as a provocation. We are merely giving teachers

  111
  what they have been asking for for many years and I cannot see how that could be provoking. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will elaborate on that point at some time.
  One of the great paradoxes of the educational scene is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has introduced some measures to improve and—
  The Chairman: Order. We are in Committee and are discussing a narrow amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to it.
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall do my utmost to stay within the rules of order.
  My right hon. Friend has introduced many measures to improve the educational performance of schools and thereby improve the quality of education for our children. This measure is cast in the same mould that—
  The Chairman: Order. If I allow the hon. Member to follow that line, I must allow other hon. Members to put arguments either in support or rebuttal of the Bill, and that we cannot have. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the amendment.
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall take careful note of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It would appear that there is less support for me on Conservative Benches than there usually is.
  I was genuinely surprised that there was no warm welcome for the measure. It will generally assist education. I hope that I am not straying out of order, but it would seem that the Opposition are opposing the measure purely for opposition's sake and are not looking at the benefits—
  The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch my eye on Third Reading. His remarks would be more appropriate then than now.
  Mr. Pawsey: I acknowledge the fact that the amount of funding available for the measure is admittedly small. Nevertheless, it would seem that it is adequate to cover its requirements and needs. As this point will no doubt be touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) when he makes the Government's winding up speech, I shall rest my case on that note.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): It is difficult to follow that contribution, but I shall do my best.
  I hope that it will not disappoint the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) too severely when I tell him that we do not find it possible to accept the amendments to this small but helpful Bill. I was constantly reminded, both on Second Reading and this evening, of how difficult it is to do good in this world, but we are, as hon. Gentlemen will know, putting right something that has been frightfully successful for a number of years, and we should be given some credit for doing so.
  I do not want to traverse once again all the arguments with which we dealt on Second Reading. On that occasion, I dealt with the argument put by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about provocation and the other words that are generally regarded as synonymous with provocation, most of which he trotted out then and has trotted out since. Were I to do so, I should be repeating myself—[Interruption.] On the question of the dispute, perhaps I should once again make it clear, in case it is
  112
  necessary, that the Government want an early, fair and lasting settlement to the dispute, which will ensure that we do not again get into appalling difficulties, and the resulting damage which we have seen all to frequently in the past decade or so.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What will the hon. Gentleman do?
  Mr. Patten: I should have thought that £1·25 billion is not chicken feed. That is on the table and would be regarded by most public sector unions as being the flexibility with which they could well do.
  Mr. Bennett: If this is such a generous offer, why is it that the hon. Gentleman's charms have not persuaded the teachers to renegotiate?
  Mr. Patten: It is not for me to comment on my charms. Perhaps none of us is perfect.
  There has been some criticism both this evening and on Second Reading that we have not made available enough additional resources to provide for, adequate and reliable supervision.
  Amendment No. 1 would in due course reduce the additional expenditure which could be approved in England and Wales to about £28 million. In our view, that would not be adequate for the purpose. The increase that it would allow would not be sufficient to provide for the £40 million which we have said we are prepared to approve for education support grant purposes in the coming financial year. The effect of amendment No. 4 would be that we could approve expenditure on midday supervision for ESG support only until the end of the financial year 1986–87. I do not believe that to be desirable. I understand the attachment of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to the block grant as a hallmark of local democracy and local accountability. That raises much broader issues, with which I hope we shall have the opportunity to deal on future occasions.
  Our intention, in offering the ESG for midday supervision, is to encourage authorities to develop new arrangements. In that sense, as we have said before, it is a pump priming activity. We expect that once the new arrangements are fully established they can be funded through the rate support grant in the same way as is most education expenditure by local authorities. I imagine that this will go some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman. However, at this stage we cannot be sure how long it will take. In primary legislation it would be wrong to impose a time limit of this kind.
  The increase that we propose will provide for the approval of an additional expenditure of £55 million in England and Wales in 1986–87. There is therefore likely to be a small amount of headroom as a result of this increase. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has given an undertaking—he did so during our Second Reading debate—that pending the outcome of the review of local government finance, an outcome to which we all look forward, approvals for activities other than midday supervision will not exceed the existing 0·5 per cent. limit in the 1984 Act. I am perfectly happy to repeat that undertaking to the Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether we envisaged paying for extra curricula work whenever it takes place during the day. The answer to this question is, as he

  113
  knows, in the negative. The overall work that is done by teachers must obviously be taken into account when determining their pay and considering their conditions of service. The sooner we deal with those things together the better.
  When dealing with amendment No. 4 the hon. Gentleman referred to the relationship between the money that we are making available for lunchtime duties and the £1·25 billion. We have been accused of robbing teachers because the money for midday supervision will come from within the £1·25 billion that the Government have said that they are prepared to make available, if a suitable agreement upon teachers' duties and a salary structure can be reached. However, as has been said on almost more occasions than I care to recall, teachers have long argued for an end to the uncertainty over midday supervision. A resolution of this problem is bound to cost money. We made clear last August when we announced the £1·25 billion that it included a provision for new arrangements at midday. The remainder of the £1·25 billion continues to be available if the conditions for its release are met, but we are not prepared to give something for nothing. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
  Mr. Bennett: I am disappointed by the Minister of State's reply. He has thrown no new light upon the difference between supervision and teaching during the lunchtime period. The Minister must address that central problem. He is saying that the payment can be made if either a teacher or somebody else who is specially employed for the purpose merely stops pupils from getting up to mischief. In other words, he wants to ensure that pupils eat in a civilised manner at lunchtime and that after they have had their lunch they are looked after in the school building or in the school playground. If, however, somebody finds something that is educationally useful for pupils to do at lunchtime, the Minister doubts whether the money can be used for that purpose. That is the central dilemma of this approach. While most educationalists want teachers to get a break so that they can be refreshed for their teaching in the afternoon, they would also accept, particularly in schools with a fairly lengthy lunch hour, that it is possible to have a break and to carry out a role at lunchtime that is both supervisory and educational.
  It is logical that teachers who are carrying out both an educational and supervisory role ought to be paid some of this money for doing so. Until the Government can answer that central problem, the proposals in the Bill will run into difficulty. I do not believe that the amendment would usefully alter the Bill in any way, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN REMUNERATION FROM REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS ACT 1965
  10·30 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
  'which shall only be paid after local education authorities have satisfied the Secretary of State that adequate additional training has been provided for supervisory staff'.
  The Chairman: With this it will he convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
  '(2) This section shall not have effect until national minimum standards on the level of supervisory staff have been established.'.
  Mr. Fisher: These amendments seek to ensure that whoever undertakes lunchtime supervision in schools is properly trained and is working to national minimum standards of staffing.
  The questions of training and staffing were both raised on Second Reading, but the Government gave no clear indication on either matter. Tonight they owe it to head teachers, teachers, parents, children and anyone who may undertake this work in the future to make their position clear and to give some answers, particularly on safety and discipline.
  Safety and discipline are difficult enough for trained, qualified and experienced teachers, but for untrained people the problems they raise will cause grave difficulties for the quality and maintenance of standards in schools. The premise behind the amendments is that most of the staff undertaking this work are likely to be untrained. The National Association of Head Teachers has estimated that the sums involved will allow payments at the rate of approximately £2·75 an hour. Do the Minister's figures accord with that? If so, very few teachers will accept that payment, and it is highly likely that the staff undertaking this work will be untrained and working to levels of staffing that are not specified in the Bill.
  The Minister's Department is ultimately responsible, along with local education authorities, for ensuring the safety of children in schools, through Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and the provision of trained, qualified staff to teach our children.
  Schools are extremely hazardous places. They are full of complicated, dangerous and sometimes heavy equipment, as well as chemicals. Many modern schools are full of glass, and in the urban areas many of our older schools are full of railings. These are all potential sources of accidents, especially during the dinner hour. In addition to any playground accidents or accidents with equipment, particlarly PE equipment, there is always the danger of fire. Since the Education Act 1981 there is also the problem of dealing with children with special educational needs.
  Will children with special educational needs in normal primary, comprehensive or high schools be suitably supervised at lunchtime by unqualified and untrained staff working to unspecified levels of staffing? Such staff may well be unfamiliar with the premises and the materials to be found on them. How will they cope? Many secondary schools are now very large. I represent an inner city constituency, yet a school that I visitd last week has 840 pupils. Although it is in the middle of Stoke-on-Trent, it has 13 acres of ground, and additional hazards arise from shops, roads and visits to the chippy. How will unspecified levels of staff, particularly untrained people who do not know these premises, be able to supervise lunchtime?
  I mentioned earlier the problems of fire and children with special educational needs. The Minister will recall that a few weeks ago a special school at Fenton in Stoke-on-Trent burnt down. Fortunately, that was not during the dinner hour. If it had been, handicapped children would have had to be got out of the building by unqualified staff.

  115
  Is the Minister prepared to make any special provision for special schools? I am sure that he agrees that he has a particular responsibility to children with special needs.
  Accidents are more commonplace, but how will unqualified staff cope with simple breaks and lacerations? I was amazed to learn from the North Stafforshire health authority last week that more than 100 children are admitted to the hospital casualty department in Stoke-on-Trent every week of the school term with lacerations and breaks. We are not accident prone; I am told that those are typical figures. Many more children suffer breaks, cuts and lacerations during the lunch break, and an onerous responsibility is being placed on staff who, if the Bill is not amended, will be working with no training and with unspecified numbers.
  Who will be responsible for taking children to hospital? Will it be the head? What will happen if the head is off the premises, as the Bill allows him to be? What will be the levels of staffing and training? To whom will staff be responsible if things go wrong? Will they be responsible to the board of governors, to the local education authority or to the head?
  What training do the Government envisage? Who will pay for the training? Who will set the standards of training? Will the Department of Education and Science get involved? What level of staffing does the Minister think will be necessary to ensure the safety of children? Will there be minimum national standards of training and staffing, or will it be left to each local education authority, with the Government saying, "You sort it out. It is your responsibility"? That would not be fair. The Government are changing the law and providing the money. They should be responsible for ensuring that staff are trained and that there is an adequate level of staff to ensure the safety of our children.
  The problems of safety are containable compared with the less tangible problems of discipline. I am sure that the Minister and other hon. Members will know that discipline is difficult, even in some primary schools, particularly in inner city areas. There is a narrow line between order and chaos, and between a good educational atmosphere and a shambles in the classroom or the playground. If the Minister had ever had to take charge of high-spirited teenagers, let alone more difficult and disturbed children, he would know that these are serious problems and that the skill of maintaining discipline is not easy to learn.
  How will discipline work with untrained non-teaching staff? Will lunchtime supervisors have disciplinary powers? That question is not answered by the Bill. What synchronisation does the Minister envisage between the lunchtime supervisors and teachers and head teachers? Who will supervise the lunchtime supervisors? Who will ensure that there is continuity of discipline in school hours and at lunchtime?
  What advice would the Minister offer to a dinner lady or lunchtime supervisor who is left in charge of a high school and is approached by a large 14-year-old lad who uses what can only be described as unparliamentary language to her? That is not a matter of jest, though it has made some Conservative Members smile. That would be an unfair and difficult situation for the supervisor. It would also be unfair to other pupils, and it would be detrimental to the standards of discipline in the school. What will a supervisor do if there are two outbreaks of disciplinary
  116
  problems and there is not enough supervisory staff to cope? The Bill does not ensure that there will be sufficient supervisory staff with adequate skills—staff provided nationally—to make sure that discipline is maintained.
  I am sure the Minister will not deny that a breakdown in discipline at dinner time will have an effect on the whole of afternoon education in the school and could affect the quality and atmosphere of education in the school more permanently. I am sure the Minister will agree also that discipline is a vital ingredient in education and in the ethos of a school. Untrained supervisory staff of variable numbers, with unspecified guidelines, could have considerable problems and could do considerable damage to the school, to pupils, to staff-pupil relationships, to education and to standards in schools, which, rightly, the Government say they are seeking to improve.
  I fear that the Government have not thought about any of these problems. The Minister agreed on Second Reading that they have not consulted any of the teachers' unions. I understand that the Government sent a note to the National Association of Head Teachers, but they have not indulged in any consultation. They have not thought the Bill through. They have not thought through the difficulties that the Bill will raise of training, staffing, appointing staff, the accountability of staff, the liaison that the staff may have with teaching staff and the position of the head and deputy head in relation to the staff. They have not even defined the lunch hour. I do not know how they have made their calculations without defining what they mean by a lunch hour. The Minister will know that a lunch hour varies considerably from school to school and authority to authority.
  None of these problems has been considered by the Minister or his Department. In answering the debate on the first amendment, the Minister suggested that everything was quite simple and that it was a thoroughly uncontroversial Bill. The amendments reflect the difficulties that lie behind the unconsidered parts of the Bill. Even now it is not too late for the Minister to recognise that there are difficulties with the Bill. He would be wise to recognise them and to accept the amendments. I am sure he will agree that the Government owe it to parents and teachers to ensure that standards are maintained and that the supervisory staff in a school are properly trained and sufficient in number. The Government should set the standards, because they are introducing the Bill. They should set an adequate standard of training, and they should pay for the staffing that is proposed and for the training of the staff, to ensure that the staff are competent and efficient. Failure to do that will put schools and the standards within them in jeopardy.
  The amendments are extremely constructive and give the Government the chance to improve the Bill by addressing the serious problems of safety, discipline and the quality of supervisory staff in schools. I urge the Minister to accept them and to improve the Bill.
  Mr. Freud: The amendments are another example of concern that was expressed on Second Reading. It seems reasonable that if LEAs are to have to bid for ESG moneys, which is how the system has worked in the past, they should know what the rules are by which their bids will be assessed in future. I suggest to the Minister that he has not thought about this nearly enough. We do not know what he feels about ratios or the role of teachers, if any.

  117
  We do not know why he has rejected the idea of a national agreement. In a parliamentary answer which I received today—
  Mr. Chris Patten: I am struggling to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments. A short while ago he was accusing the Government of being too centralist in their approach. He is now saying that we should not leave everything to local authorities. His arguments are confusing. On the one hand, he is saying that we are centralising too much, and on the other he is saying that we are depending too much on local education authorities.
  Mr. Freud: My point was that the Minister had not thought. I received a reply today, containing a fair amount of waffle, to my question about ratios. It stated:
  "the sum of £40 million is not based on any single staffing ratio or rate of pay but the Government are satisfied that it will suffice to provide reliable and adequate supervision in schools in England and Wales."
  The Minister has had the brilliance to pluck a figure of £40 million out of the sky and say, "This is an adequate sum", without giving the rationale for what those ratios will be. I remind him of the success that the Secretary of State had when he plucked the figure of £1·25 million out of the sky and felt that it was adequate to settle the teachers' dispute.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Chris Patten: I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will not regard me as being too legalistic if I say that the effect of the amendments would be decidedly bizarre. As they would add words to the end of clause 2, if enacted they would mean that the remuneration paid under the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965—the salaries of teachers and lecturers—should be paid only if local education authorities had satisfied the Secretary of State that they were providing adequate training and standards for supervisory staff. I cannot believe that that is the Opposition's intention.
  I shall address myself to what may be the Opposition's intention. I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. We do not accept that additional training should be a statutory requirement for supervisory staff, which amendment No. 11 implies. It will be open to local education authorities to offer teachers separate contracts to do this work. It cannot be right to require local education authorities to train experienced teachers in the supervision of the midday break. I am sure that local education authorities will be guided by the principle that new supervisory staff must be capable of performing their tasks—covering safety and first aid, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said—and of discharging the authorities' duty of care to the pupils in their charge. No doubt, some recruits will need short courses of training for this purpose—a point that has been taken on board by the Manchester education authority and the Inner London education authority which were considering, independently of this legislation, introducing lunch-time supervision. Authorities have experience in the provision of courses for such staff on which they can build.
  The Committee should leave this matter to the local education authorities, which were properly commended earlier by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). I take the point that local education authorities and the Government will need to pay particular attention to special schools and units. The Government do
  118
  not propose to issue guidance on the ratios of supervisory staff to pupils, which I understand was the thinking behind amendment No. 7. Our concern is to assist local education authorities to put in hand supervision arrangements which provide for work to be done under separate contracts, secure effective supervision over the period of the midday break under the overall authority of the head teacher—this takes up a point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—and do not rely on voluntary participation of teachers. Provided that those objectives are met, we believe that staffing levels and the type of staff to be recruited are best left to local discretion.
  Mr. Freud: Will the money be divided equally among LEAs on a per capita basis, or will those who can strike a bargain with their meal supervisors be punished?
  Mr. Patten: We have set out in the draft circular which is in the Library the criteria on which we shall allocate funds. It is based on the number of children in an authority area and the number of schools. One must make some allowance for the size of schools and the existence of rural areas, which is why Wales has been treated in the way that it has been. Those details are set out in the circular. I am sure that that should satisfy the hon. Gentleman
  Those who press for the Government to prescribe staffing standards for midday supervision should reflect on the fact that no standards have been prescribed for teacher staffing in primary and secondary schools for some time. The Labour Government revoked the regulations relating to maximum class sizes in 1969. The Government do not think that it is right to introduce arrangements to secure the supervision of pupils at midday subject to the conclusion of a national agreement.
  We believe that local education authorities are best placed to decide, within broad criteria, what arrangements are best suited to the circumstances of their schools, taking account of existing arrangements that vary from one area to another. For example, it will be for authorities to decide whether teachers should he given the opportunity to participate in supervision and for teachers to decide whether to accept that opportunity. Until the balance between teaching and non-teaching staff within the new arrangements is known, it would be premature to attempt a national agreement. Whether there should ultimately be a national agreement on midday supervision is not an issue for the Government, who would not be a party to it. It is a matter for the local education authorities and the staff whom they employ to resolve in the light of experience. I do not hear much support for the call made by the National Association of Head Teachers for a national agreement.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central suggested that midday supervision can be done only by teachers. That was a point that I sought to answer during the Second Reading of this admirable little measure. Already many people who are not teachers are employed to assist with supervision—about 90,000. Many adults are responsible for the safety and welfare of children in other areas. I do not believe that it is a job that can be done only by teachers. I therefore hope that the Committee will resist the two amendments.
  Mr. Fisher: The Minister is being a little legalistic. Of course the Bill is difficult to amend, because it is unspecific. If the Minister would like to draft some amendments to the Bill on Report we would look at them

  119
  with great sympathy and kindness. I am sure that his staff would have no difficulty in amending the Bill, if only the will was there. Unfortunately, the will is not there. The Government have said that they do not accept that there should be statutory training. The Labour party believes that the Government are wrong and that they will regret that decision. Time will prove that it is necessary to have statutory levels of training for the serious job of supervising children in schools.
  The Minister talked about that being the responsibility of local education authorities and said that they should have short courses. He will of course, recognise that it will mean extra expense for the authorities if they take their responsibilities seriously. Does he believe that short courses at the discretion of local education authorities are adequate to deal with the problems that we have discussed? He said he believed that they should work within broad criteria. Is it his intention to publish those critieria, because they are certainly not laid down in the Bill?
  If the Minister is saying that the Government will come forward with certain criteria, for example, minimum standards and guidelines within which local education authorities will work, we welcome that. That is what he appeared to say in the Bill. If not, he was referring to other criteria set by other people. I understood him to mean that the Government would come forward with the criteria. We would welcome that, because we believe it to be necessary.
  The Minister also seemed to suggest that special schools were a particular case. What will the Government do to protect all children with special educational needs, not only those at special schools? I am sure that he recalls the provisions of the Education Act 1981, which ensures that children with special educational needs are educated alongside other children in ordinary schools. They, too, have particular needs of safety and discipline.
  Is the Minister seriously saying that he does not believe that children with special educational needs require specially trained staff to supervise them at lunchtime? He cannot mean that. He knows that I was referring, not to teaching staff, but specifically to trained staff. For children at special schools with special educational needs, and physically and mentally handicapped children, it is wrong for the Government to say that they can be supervised by untrained and unqualified staff.
  If anything goes wrong when the Bill is put into practice in schools, the Government will regret it. I urge them now to publish the guidelines or broad criteria to which they are working. In the hope that they will think again seriously about safety, particularly that of children with special educational needs, and in the belief that the Minister is serious about addressing the problems and will reconsider them on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end add—
  '(2) Section 2A above shall not apply to nursery schools.'.
  Before the Minister jumps up to tell us that the amendment will not have the effect that he thinks we intend, let me tell him that we wish to take the opportunity to probe the Government on how they see the measure
  120
  affecting nursery schools. If the amendment is impractical, we shall not be too disappointed. However, we shall be disappointed if the Minister fails to answer this question: in practice, what does he expect to happen in nursery schools?
  The Minister has some major problems to sort out. In an earlier debate, he did not seem to be able to answer the question about the difference between supervision and education in the lunch hour. He will have greater difficulty in telling us where supervision finishes and where education starts in the nursery school.
  In nursery education, the teacher and the nursery nurse have a different tradition of training and a clear difference in function, one being involved with education and the other in looking after the children, although in practice in many nursery schools it is often difficult to see where the skills of the one finish and the skills of the other start.
  At lunchtime there will be greater difficulty in working out how to separate the supervision role from the education role. Anyone involved in looking after 3 to 5-year-olds in nursery schools will feel that it is part of the education to encourage the children to eat their midday meal in a civilised way and talk to each other, as well as to experiment with food that they are not likely to get at home. The teachers can talk about the nutritional content of the food and encourage the children to widen their taste so that they become interested in a wide range of foods. Those are educational areas. It would unfortunate if the Government want to give someone rate of pay that encourages him simply to supervise the children and see that they do not do any physical damage, rather than to carry out an educational role.
  What does the Minister envisage will happen in the nursery schools? Does he envisage the nursery nurses working through lunchtime, or having a staggered lunch hour, whereas the nursery teacher will stop work at some point, and his or her role will be taken over by the person involved with lunchtime supervision? Then the teacher will start work again, having had a half hour or three quarters of an hour break. There will be great difficulties in making the Bill work effectively in nursery schools. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he thinks it will work.
  11 pm
  Mr. Chris Patten: Two points set the argument in context and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, not unreasonably, they have determined our approach to the question. First, five out of six nursery pupils attend school part time, for either the morning or the afternoon, so the great majority do not need to be supervised during the midday break. Secondly, nursery schools and classes necessarily employ more non-teaching staff than other schools. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and as parents of young children will immediately appreciate, these very young pupils need more supervision at all times and not just at midday. That need is reflected in the fact that non-teaching staff out number teachers in these schools.
  Local education authorities may consider that there are already adequate arrangements for supervision of pupils remaining on the premises at midday, but some may wish to make additional provision. That will be their choice in the light of the staffing of their schools. Authorities will be able to use ESG money for the supervision of pupils in nursery schools if they think it right to do so. If they decide

  121
  to offer separate contracts, there is no reason why those contracts should be treated differently from contracts for staff in other schools in terms of the Remuneration of Teachers Act.
  The distinction between lunchtime supervision and extracurricular work at lunchtime, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred on several occasions, was made as long ago as the 1945 regulations and in the Rossetti report and subsequently, so although we all appreciate the distinction I think that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman is—to return to a word that we have both used—making a somewhat legalistic point.
  Mr. Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  11·3 pm
  Mr. Chris Patten: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Government's purpose in this admirable little Bill is clear. We are seeking to promote the education of pupils by assisting local education authorities to make arrangements for supervision at midday which will ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of schools. As I have said before, I have been surprised at the objections raised by the Opposition on Second Reading and in our earlier consideration of the Bill today. I should have expected people as genuinely interested as I know that they are in the wellbeing of the education service to welcome this long overdue measure.
  I would like to comment briefly on some of the objections that have been raised. We are accused of taking control of money which would otherwise have been available to local education authorities to spend as they wished. In respect of other ESG activities to be supported through education support grants, we have indeed said that the money should be found through redeployment within the total of planned expenditure on education, but we have recognised that midday supervision is a new demand which requires new money.
  Under the arrangements that we propose, 70 per cent. of the additional cost of midday supervision arrangements which are approved for ESG support this year and next will be met from the Exchequer. There will be no reduction in block grant as a result of this proposal, so we cannot be accused of asking authorities to bid for their own money. Authorities will need to find the remaining 30 per cent. if they wish to qualify for ESG support, but that will be their own choice. No authority which does not wish to do so will be forced to seek ESG money for this purpose.
  I hope that, in practice, most authorities will see the advantage of using the assistance we are offering to improve their arrangements for midday supervision. Some local education authorities are already acting to introduce arrangements along the lines we propose. We expect that many more will do so.
  We have also been accused of rushing this measure through with unseemly haste, but the need in our schools is clearly, alas, urgent. The General Secretary of the Secondary Heads Association has been quoted as saying:
  "the urgency of the situation was such that delay might have extremely serious implications for pupils, parents and local communities".
  122
  The Association's members are in a position to know the damage being done to our schools. I might add that the Association has broadly welcomed our proposals. Like all of the other teacher bodies, it was consulted about our draft circular.
  A more substantial objection, if it were true—which it decidedly is not—is that we are prepared to bring forward proposals on this subject but not to do anything to resolve the dispute about teachers' pay. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made that point earlier. I shall not repeat the arguments that have been put to the House many times. We want an end to this damaging dispute. We have done all that we can to achieve a settlement that is fair to all parties to the bargain. We should not forget that that must include the taxpayers and ratepayers who must ultimately foot the bill. They must find the £1·25 billion of new money that we have proposed.
  Against that background, it is mischievous of Opposition Members to suggest that we should not go ahead with the Bill until employers and teachers reach a pay agreement for 1985–86. We all hope that an agreement will soon be reached. There is a meeting tomorrow, which I hope will move matters forward constructively. The Government will continue to try to find ways in which to bring the dispute to an end which is fair—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That does not arise on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Patten: In that case, I shall come even more speedily to an exceptionally brief peroration. The Bill seeks to solve a longstanding problem which has caused increasing difficulties in our schools. I therefore commend it to the House.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: We oppose the Bill receiving a Third Reading for the same reasons as we opposed its receiving a Second Reading. We object to the way in which education support grants are now being funded. Although we do not oppose the principle of specific grants, we oppose the Secretary of State removing money from hard-pressed local authorities to use it for his own purposes.
  I accept that the Government will provide £28 million for 1986–87 to support supervision at midday. However, as the Minister admitted, local education authorities will have to provide £12 million out of their own resources and they will lose control over a further £12 million of their money.
  Against the background of the growing crises of provision in our schools and the growing squeeze on education resources, we condemn the Government's failure to provide new money to cover all education support grants. We also oppose the Bill because we object to its timing. We recognise the strong case for a fully staffed ancillary service at lunchtime, but the Government have not answered some serious questions about training and staffing.
  The Secretary of State is rushing through the Bill during the dispute without consulting the teachers, and that is understandably considered to be provocative, particularly since the £40 million approved expenditure comes from the so-called "envelope" of £1·25 billion which the Government say is available under certain conditions for teachers' pay.

  123
  The third reason why we are against the Bill is the Government's sense of priorities. There is a glaring contrast between the Secretary of State's eagerness to rush the Bill through the House and his inactivity in solving the teachers' dispute. Since August the Secretary of State has either wrung his hands or sat on them. The dispute over teachers' pay has lasted 18 months in Scotland and 11 months in England and Wales, inflicting great damage on our children's education.
  The Government must now set up an inquiry. It has responsibility for the education service—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying outside the Bill.
  Mr. Radice: The Government must take responsibility for finding a solution to this damaging dispute.
  The Bill does nothing to tackle the desperate shortage of money and crisis of provision in our schools. It is illtimed. Above all, it does nothing to bring an end to the teachers' dispute. For those reasons, we oppose the Bill.
  11·12 pm
  Mr. Freud: The Minister described the measure as an admirable little Bill. That is how King Edward VII referred to the Kaiser. My right hon. and hon. Friends will oppose the Bill, mainly because of its irrelevance, and because the Minister has failed to provide anything remotely like supervision at mealtimes. He is providing only for people to stand around while children eat.
  I oppose the Bill because it does nothing to make education in 1986 less awful than it was in 1985. What is more, it takes £40 million out of education expenditure which might have helped solve the teachers' dispute. I oppose it because it will do nothing towards finding a solution, and nothing towards setting up an inquiry that might finally help education.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already reproached the Minister and the Opposition spokesman. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Freud: I wanted to show the unity throughout the House. I can see no good cause—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that I am the only right hon. Gentleman who is out of step, but I am the only one in step. I hope that he will get in step with me.
  Mr. Freud: I accept that and shall move on quickly.
  Our opposition to the Bill is predominantly because it does nothing new. The only new step taken by the Secretary of State recently was to appoint the hon. Ladies the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) to junior posts because he is the only man in the House who does not know the difference between them. I welcome their appointments, but I hope that their talents will be used in future for more acceptable causes.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 66.

  Division No. 29]

  [11.15 pm>

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Ancram, Michael

  Amess, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  124

  Atkinson, David (B m'th E)

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

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hunter, Andrew

  Benyon, William

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Blackburn, John

  Jackson, Robert

  Body, Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

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

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Knowles, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Lang, Ian

  Brinton, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Lester, Jim

  Burt, Alistair

  Lord, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Maclean, David John

  Cash, William

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Chapman, Sydney

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Chope, Christopher

  Major, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Conway, Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Coombs, Simon

  Marlow, Antony

  Cope, John

  Mather, Carol

  Corrie, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Crouch, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Dicks, Terry

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Moate, Roger

  Durant, Tony

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Murphy, Christopher

  Evennett, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Newton, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Favell, Anthony

  Normanton, Tom

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Norris, Steven

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Forth, Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Galley, Roy

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Portillo, Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Powley, John

  Gow, Ian

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Raffan, Keith

  Greenway, Harry

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Gregory, Conal

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Ground, Patrick

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Spencer, Derek

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Squire, Robin

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Harris, David

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Harvey, Robert

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Hayward, Robert

  Thurnham, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Heddle, John

  Waller, Gary

  Hickmet, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hind, Kenneth

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Hirst, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Mr. Peter Lloyd and

  Holt, Richard

  Mr. Francis Maude.

  Howard, Michael

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm

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

  Caborn, Richard

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Boyes, Roland

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  125

  Clarke, Thomas

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Lamond, James

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Leighton, Ronald

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McWilliam, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Marek, Dr John

  Deakins, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Dixon, Donald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dormand, Jack

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Douglas, Dick

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Eadie, Alex

  Patchett, Terry

  Eastham, Ken

  Pike, Peter

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Ewing, Harry

  Radice, Giles

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Fisher, Mark

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Foster, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foulkes, George

  Snape, Peter

  Freud, Clement

  Spearing, Nigel

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Golding, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Hardy, Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Haynes, Frank

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Home Robertson, John

  Mr. Alex Carlile and

  Howells, Geraint

  Mr. James Wallace.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

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

Education Support Grants
11·25 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.
The draft regulations amend the Education Support Grants Regulations 1984 so as to add one further item to the purposes for which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales may pay grant. The additional purpose is
"securing the supervision of pupils in schools at midday".
My right hon. Friends have consulted the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Welsh Joint Education Committee about their proposals. Those associations raised no objections to the amendment effected by the draft regulations.
There has already been considerable debate in the House on our proposal to pay education support grants for midday supervision. I do not want to flog an argument which has long since been deceased. Therefore, I shall concentrate on two points which have a particular bearing on the draft regulations.
First, I shall explain more fully the resources which the Government are making available for this purpose. We shall add £10 million to relevent expenditure for local authorities in this financial year. The aggregate of Exchequer grants to local authorities will be increased by
£7 million, representing 70 per cent. of the total which will be supported through education support grants, if the draft regulations are approved. For next year, the sums involved are £40 million and £28 million respectively. Those additions for 1986–87 can be made available only if the Education (Amendment) Bill, which the House has just read a Third time, receives Royal Assent.
Secondly, hon. Members may welcome some information about the nature of new arrangements which might result from our proposals. The description in the amendment regulations is deliberately drawn widely. My right hon. Friends have no wish to prescribe the details of any arrangements which local education authorities consider suitable for their authorities and schools. Before approving expenditure for education support grant, they will wish to be sure that the proposed arrangements satisfy a few simple criteria. Those criteria are described in the draft circular, a copy of which is in the Library.
We have received some helpful comments on the draft circular from the local authority and teacher associations, and others who were invited to comment, and we will look at the draft again in the light of those comments. If the regulations receive the approval of Parliament, we shall issue the circular to all local education authorities inviting them to submit proposals for approval for education support grant. Our aim is that grant should be payable on expenditure incurred from the beginning of the spring term so that authorities may move ahead quickly with their plans to provide proper supervision at midday.
I ask the House to approve the amendment regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That, in the course of its consideration of the matter of the recommendations of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council concerning higher education in Scotland, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 20th January 1986 at half-past 10 o'clock.—[Mr. Mather.]

ARMED FORCES BILL
Ordered,
That Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Sir Antony Buck, Mr. Roger Freeman, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. John Stanley, Mr. Neil Thorne, Mr. Peter Viggers and Mr. James Wallace be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:
Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.—[Mr. Mather.]

House of Commons Members' Fund
11.29 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
That in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended, and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1st December 1985 as follows:
(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £2,355 of such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £4,353 per annum whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £4,545 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £6,543 per annum, whichever is the less:
(b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,179 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £3,177 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,268 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £4,266 per annum, whichever is the less:
(c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words: 'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £1,179 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £3,177 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs the Trustees think fit,
they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,268 or such sum, as in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £4,266 per annum, whichever is the less:
(d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words: 'the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 shall be—
(a) £1,372 if the payments are made to a past Member; and
(b) £686 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.
The motion is in the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who share with me the responsibility, as trustees, of administering the fund.
The purpose of the motion is to provide for and to increase the present levels of grants and payments which may be made under the Members' fund legislation, in line with the recent increases approved for public service and national insurance retirement pensions.
Members of this House now enjoy pension rights under the parliamentary contributory pension fund, but this has not always been so. Former colleagues who left the House before 1964 have no pension whatever from the House.

129
Many of them live in considerably reduced, and indeed straitened circumstances, not least those who are now of advanced years and, even more so, the widows or widowers of former Members. The Members' fund has existed since 1939 to provide assistance where necessary to former Members and their dependants, but the help that my fellow trustees and I are empowered to give from the fund is extremely modest.
Mr. Tom Clarke: What is the present annual rate of payment from the fund?
Mr. Morris: The present annual rate is £138,000.
The trustees are deeply conscious of the need for more help from the fund and are urgently considering what steps might be taken to achieve improvement.
A further problem is that the needs of former colleagues or their widows or widowers are not always known to us, which is why on occasions like this some attention to the fund's work is important. I shall be most grateful if right hon. and hon. Members will get in touch with me if they become aware of any former Members or their dependants who are in need of help that the fund can provide.
I need not detain the House for long, as the provisions for which I and my fellow trustees seek approval are set out in detail in the motion. In paragraph 1(a) we set out the new provisions for grants to ex-hon. Members. At present the trustees are authorised to make grants to ex-Members of up to £2,199, provided that the total income of the applicant, including the grant, does not exceed £4,067. By this motion the grant is raised to £2,355 and the income limit to £4,353. To this is added a provision by which the trustees will be authorised to make larger payments, having due regard to length of service and need, of a grant of up to £4,545, provided that the income of the applicant, together with the grant, does not exceed £6,543.
Grants to widows are set out under subparagraph (b). At present the grant to an ex-Member's widow is £1,101, provided that her income, with the grant, does not exceed £2,969. This grant is raised to £1,179, and the income limit raised to £3,177. There follows the provision by which, having regard to her husband's length of service, or to need, the trustees will be enabled to make grants of up to £2,268, provided that the widow's income, with the grant, does not exceed £4,266.
Grants to widowers are set out in subparagraph (c), and the provisions there are similar to those for widows in subparagraph (b).
Subparagraph (d) refers to the "as of right" payments from the Members' fund to former Members who had 10 years of service before October 1964, and to widows and widowers of such Members, provided for by the House of Commons Members' fund, and the Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, which came into force on 19 March 1981. We now seek to increase the payments, at present at the rate of £1,282 per annum, to former Members to £1,372 per annum, and the payments to widows or widowers from £641 per annum to £686 per annum.
These new provisions will all be effective from 1 December 1985. They provide for increases of approximately 7 per cent. across the board, in line with the provisions in the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1985, and the additional expenditure arising from the motion will be £9,800.
130
I hope that the motion will receive the unanimous support of the House, for I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that the experience of the trustees has made us realise how urgently this further provision is needed and how very much it will be welcomed by the fund's beneficiaries.
Finally, I wish to thank most warmly Mr. J. L. G.Dobson, the Accountant, and his colleagues in the Fees Office, both for their constant help to the trustees and for their ever humane concern for the wellbeing of those whom we serve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of tie House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended, and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1st December 1985 as follows:
(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £2,355 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £4,353 per annum whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £4,545 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £6,543 per annum, whichever is the less:
(b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,179 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £3,177 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,268 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £4,266 per annum, whichever is the less:
(c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words: 'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £1,179 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £3,177 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,268 or such sum, as in the opinim of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £4,266 per annum, whichever is the less:
(d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words: 'the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 shall be—
(a) £1,372 if the payments are made to a past Member; and
(b) £686 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.

Fuel Poverty
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]
11.36 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: When the unnaturally cold spell hit us in November, many thousands of householders up and down the country were alarmed, for they saw ahead of them yet another long, dreary winter following on a cold and wet summer, with the ever-rising fuel bills that this means. This thought is depressing enough for the moderately affluent among us, but for those on the poverty line, or beneath it, it spells disaster and, for many, the inevitable cutting off of supplies because of the lack of ability to pay.
The Electricity Consumers Council recently issued disconnection figures up to 30 September of this year which show that the number of disconnections in England and Wales is now running at nearly 100,000 a year. The Liberal party commission on poverty in 1982 pointed out that one quarter of all local authority tenants are the victims of fuel poverty, while a further quarter are potential victims.
Age Concern tells us that seven years ago it was estimated that 90 per cent. of elderly people were unable to heat their homes up to the required 70 deg F to keep themselves warm and healthy in the winter months, and there is very little evidence that the position is improving. The consequences of inadequate heating for the elderly are often illness and, in some cases, death. We are all familiar with the sad stories of old people shivering in their poorly heated houses, terrified of the financial consequences of turning up the heat. Fuel costs have risen steeply in the last decade, and although prices have levelled off somewhat during the last two or three years the overall rise in the cost of fuel and light in real terms during the decade was 37·4 per cent., far outstripping other items in the household budget.
The people who have suffered most from the increase in fuel costs are inevitably the poor. They tend to live in bad housing, with inadequate insulation, often with the additional problems of dampness and condensation. They are seldom able to choose the kind of heating that they want and often end up with expensive and inefficient heating systems. This leads to a ridiculous situation, where those who can afford it least have to pay the most to keep themselves moderately warm. It is no wonder, therefore, that this leads to a failure to pay bills and to consequent misery.
We believe, as do the charities, that the White Paper that was published today will do little to help. Indeed, we feel that the difficulties will be even greater, both for the low paid who cannot heat their homes and for those charities that are involved in insulating several thousand homes in Britain.
The abolition of additional payments, including heating allowances for supplementary benefit claimants, will have serious consequences. The replacement of supplementary benefit by a system of income support containing a theoretical heating component may sound reasonable, but in practice it will lead to some very unpleasant choices for many households where budgets are strained to the limit. It could well be a stark choice between eating and keeping warm, with disastrous results for vulnerable groups, particularly the elderly.
132
I am also extremely alarmed that all other heating benefits to households, with special problems—those with young children or with ill, disabled or elderly people—will be abolished merely as an administrative convenience. It is also obvious that the abolition of single payments will jeopardise the future of insulation projects run by charities such as Neighbourhood Energy Action. In fact, the "Right to Fuel" campaign has said that DHSS single payments account for 80 per cent. of all insulation work carried out by the NEA.
Since 1981, this excellent group has carried out 120,000 jobs and has helped the elderly and disadvantaged to get the benefit of home insulation. At the same time, it has created about 2,500 jobs under the Government's community programme. Furthermore, it has opened up a new and thriving market for insulation projects. Will that work now be put at risk?
I believe that the present Administration, in their unseemly scramble to save money wherever they can at any cost, are in danger of reinforcing their public image as an uncaring, unsympathetic Government who are so intent on introducing tax cuts before the next election that they are careless of the needs of the most vulnerable in our society.
The White Paper represents a lost opportunity. It should have made an attempt to tackle the problem of fuel poverty, and it should have recognised the crucial role that single payments play in keeping the poor warm. The Government should take positive steps to make resources available for a special fund, as recommended by the Neighbourhood Energy Action movement, to provide a comprehensive and cost-effective approach to the insulation needs of the poor.
On a wider scale, greater efforts should be made to improve the housing stock and to ensure that building improvements and renovations are not subject to a crippling tax. Age Concern, a leading charity in the care of the elderly, has made many useful recommendations that the Government could well take on board and which would prove beneficial to all impoverished sections of society. It recommends that there should be mandatory payments for special circumstances, such as higher fuel bills in exceptionally severe weather. There should also be payments for draught proofing materials and insulation, repairs to heating appliances and so on.
I also believe that there should be a uniform and humane policy throughout Britain on disconnection procedures and repayment facilities, and that special payments should be made for reconnection. Fuel bills should be paid when disconnection may cause serious risk.
Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government are conscious of the need to modify their policies to fit the realities of life? After all, even the poorest among us are entitled to the basic requirements, including adequate heating. It is wrong that so many in this affluent society must face a miserable existence, and in this season of good will I hope that it will be possible for the Government to show just the smallest glimmer of compassion.
11.44 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) have the

133
consent of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) to take part in the debate?
Mr. Bruce: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) for giving me the chance to speak in this important debate.
I and others are grateful that the unfair trigger mechanism that was highlighted last year has been phased out, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is still a feeling particularly in northern parts of the country, that the system is unfair, because those in the northern parts—particularly the poorer members of the community—who have, by definition, higher heating costs, need additional help which is not yet available. The Government should try to ensure that such help is given.
The fact that a trigger mechanism could even be contemplated is indicative of the bias that exists against the northern areas. The temperature did not have to sink to freezing point in Penzance for people there to secure a benefit, but in my constituency, the temperature had to sink to 2·7 deg. below freezing—and that was on the coast. Temperatures inland were 10 deg. C. lower, but people still did not qualify for benefit. Getting rid of that system is one step, but we need another step to ensure help for those in colder parts of the country.
No doubt the Minister will say that the Government's contribution to fuel allowances has increased from £100 million to £400 million a year since they came to power. That is creditable, because it shows that the Government are willing to make a contribution to fuel costs, but we have not made the logical link of trying to help those on low incomes to reduce fuel costs. After all, some do not qualify for help, but still face high costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North mentioned the neighbourhood energy action schemes, which have been welcome. I was recently pleased to launch a scheme in my constituency. It took 13 people off the long-term unemployment register and gave poorer members of the community the opportunity to insulate their homes, so that they had lower fuel bills and higher temperatures. The risks of hypothermia were reduced and everyone was happy. It is important that such assistance, which we welcome, should be boosted and extended and not cut.
Many elderly people and those on low incomes are worried about standing charges on fuel bills. I was disappointed that the opportunity to abolish standing charges was not taken in the Gas Bill. Worse than that, when the Bill came before the House, the Secretary of State said that the best that he could write into the Bill was that the British Gas Corporation should use its best endeavours to keep the increases in standing charges in line with, or lower than, the rate of inflation. That is not good enough. We want to get rid of those charges and ensure that people on low incomes have help to meet fuel costs, help to be warmer and more comfortable and help to insulate their homes. I hope that the Minister will take up those points with his colleagues in the Department of Energy. They are linked.
11·49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): I listened with interest to the hon. Members for Ceredigion and
134
Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I understand and share many of the concerns which they have expressed and congratulate them on the way in which they have expressed them.
The issues raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North ranged wide and covered both fuel policy and the alleviation of poverty. He spread the net even wider by referring to draught proofing, housing and a variety of allied matters. I propose to refer briefly to energy prices, although strictly speaking they are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I propose to devote most of my remarks to the help given to the less well-off through the social security system, but I shall attempt to touch upon the specific issues raised by the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and for Gordon.
Both hon. Members mentioned the projects that have been undertaken by various neighbourhood energy action groups. There is not a great deal that I can say about them this evening, save that I recognise the good work that has been done by the groups. Decisions have yet to be taken on how they will be funded in future. That is a matter that we are considering. I hope that it will be understood thal I can go no further than that this evening.
The hon. Member for Gordon referred to some of the absurdities of the exceptionally severe weather payments and the disapproval last year which that method of making payments received in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will know that the chief adjudicating officer issued fresh guidance about the payments only recently. We are considering the guidance and the future of that form of assistance with heating bills. The hon. Gentleman will know that last year the payments amounted to only £1·7 million, while administrative costs were £1 million. I mention those figures, not to denigrate the help that was given, but to put them in the context of the £400 million worth of heating addition payments to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North illustrated the extent to which the cost of fuel is relevant to those on low incomes. I accept that view. It is an important view, and I accept what he had to say on that score. Fuel is clearly a basic necessity, especially for the elderly and the sick. I recognise the concern that is felt by many on low incomes when it comes to paying for fuel. I shall come to what has been done, what is being done and what will be done under our new proposals to try to alleviate that concern.
Reluctant though I am to do so, I must take issue with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North about the term "fuel poverty". It is a phrase which is often used these days, and upon examination it is a rather curious concept. The general idea of poverty itself is far from straightforward. We can recognise it, but it is not always easy to define it. The hon. Gentleman will know that the standard rate of supplementary benefit for adults has more than doubled in real terms since 1948 and that this benefit is the primary means of alleviating poverty, and has been so under successive Governments for some years. Yet the hon. Gentleman talks of fuel poverty. We do not hear a great deal about clothes poverty, or food poverty, but fuel poverty appears in a rather curious fashion to have developed a life of its own. Fuel, like clothes, food and all the other necessities for rich or poor alike is paid for out of people's normal income.

135
I recognise that individual need for expenditure on fuel can vary, but that is true of other necessities. I do not wish to make too much of what may seem to be a matter of semantics, but it is often misleading to talk about fuel poverty as if it were some special breed of poverty that necessarily requires different measures from those that are generally used to support the less well-off. An effective attack on poverty, which we all wish to see, comes in many guises—for example, benefit rates, control of price increases, economic stability and economic growth. Energy prices are a part of that tapestry, but only a part.
Although the general financial framework within which the gas and electricity industries operate is agreed with the Government, price increases remain a matter for the industries themselves. The Government do not set prices and do not have the power to so. Tariffs must reflect the industries' costs and provide a proper return on the substantial capital resources that they employ. They are not a means of indirect taxation. I call in evidence to support my proposition the relatively low level of price rises in recent years, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North acknowledged. They have been below the rate of inflation in the past two years and charges have therefore fallen in real terms. After allowing for inflation, the price of gas to the home is roughly what it was in 1970.
The hon. Member for Gordon addressed himself to standing charges. I know that these charges have been a cause of deep concern to many for many years, especially to the elderly. The charges reflect the necessary cost of keeping a supply available to the consumer in his own home for 24 hours a day. They cover the maintenance of the connection, meter reading, accounting, billing and emergency services. The costs arise no matter how much or how little gas or electricity is consumed by the individual householder.
The abolition of standing charges, although self-evidently attractive in some ways, is not an easy option. It would cost the gas and electricity industries more than £1·1 billion a year in lost revenue. Abolition for pensioners alone—if we could determine which pensioners should have abolition, whether it should affect people living on their own and all the other details that must be decided—would cost about £300 million. That lost revenue would have to be recovered by substantial increases in unit prices, which would penalise many of those who, through age, sickness, infirmity or some other reason, need more heat, even though they may be among the least well off.
That raises the question, which may have flashed through the mind of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, whether there should be special tariffs or free allowances for people on low incomes. That has been considered in the past, but successive Governments have concluded that it would be an expensive, ill-directed and probably ineffective means of helping those most in need. In 1976, the Labour Government announced that they had reviewed possible help through concessionary or restricted tariffs or free allowances of gas and electricity. Their conclusion—I quote from the report's foreword which was written by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—was that these did not offer
"a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills".
136
I am sure that the right hon. Member was right, and I suspect that the Liberal party thought so too, because, as far as I am aware, it expressed no contrary view at the time. Successive Governments have therefore taken the view that help is best given through the social security system. That help is considerable.
More than £40 billion is spent on social security—about a third of all Government spending. We have kept the major benefit rates ahead of the rise in prices during the lifetime of the Government and, because of the increases in benefit last month in line with inflation, we increased our spending by a further £2 billion a year. The main help for the less well off with their day-to-day living expenses, including fuel costs, is through the standard weekly rates of supplementary benefit. Those rates increased by 6 per cent. in real terms between November 1978 and November 1984 and were increased again last month in line with inflation. They have doubled in real terms since 1948, and I think that every hon. Member welcomes that.
On top of those benefit rates, we provide extra weekly help for those with special needs. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North mentioned people with special needs—the elderly, the very young, the sick and the disabled. Each is entitled to heating additions. Last year we spent more than £400 million on those heating additions, which is £140 million more in real terms than any previous Government have spent at any time. Since 1979, we have extended the help available. In November 1979 we introduced a basic rate of heating addition for pensioner householders over 75. Over the years, we have extended the age range so that this now takes in pensioner householder over 65. We have introduced a similar addition for the under-fives. Last November, we introduced a new higher rate of heating addition, worth well over £200 a year—a considerable sum—payable automatically to householders over 85. We have also assisted disabled people. Since 1980, we have paid a higher rate of heating addition automatically to severely disabled people people on supplementary benefit who receive attendance or mobility allowance or its equivalent. Last month, we introduced a further measure—automatic entitlement to a basic rate heating addition for sick and disabled householder claimants on the long-term rate of supplementary benefit. As a result of these changes, we estimate that 60 per cent. of all people on supplementary benefit and 90 per cent. of supplementary benefit pensioners now receive a heating addition. That is a dramatic improvement on the position before 1979 and represents a considerable attack on what the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to as "fuel poverty".
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to the White Paper proposals. I should like to explain why we felt it right to move forward and reform these arrangements, as announced in the White Paper which was published today. The answer is that heating additions are merely a means of giving more help to certain groups of claimants who may have extra heating needs. The additions are better, in our view, than tariff adjustments and certainly better than nothing, but they are not the only, or necessarily the best, form of assistance.
Heating additions are a rather curious mixture. Many are paid automatically on grounds such as age, but others involve detailed questioning on matters such as the claimant's health. There is a complex array of rates, rules

137
and regulations. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North did not feel that the White Paper would be an improvement on the present rather muddled situation. He asked me whether I was conscious of the need to modify policy to match reality. That is what we believe the White Paper is doing. I hope that, upon reflection, it will be shown that we are right, although I acknowledge that it is a controversial issue at present.
In the White Paper we are proposing an income support scheme to replace the current weekly supplementary benefit. Income support will continue to provide set allowances for normal living expenses, including fuel costs. There will also be premium payments for families, pensioners, sick and disabled people and lone parents to help with the extra expenses that those groups tend to have—including extra heating costs. That will mean a system that is simpler than the present one. It will be easier for the public and staff to understand. It will cut out much of the intrusive questioning that now takes place—I think that everyone will welcome that—and it will also effectively direct extra help to groups of people who are likely to face extra expenses.
As I said in the House only a couple of weeks ago, the fact that we shall not call the premiums "heating additions" does not mean that they do not exist, that the cash is not in the claimant's pocket and that it cannot be used towards fuel costs. We believe that income support will, in future, be a better means of delivering that help and we intend that the money spent on heating additions will be included in the resources available for the new scheme. Nor are we alone in that view. The Social Security Advisory
138
Committee commented similarly on the Green Paper in June. The committee welcomed the idea of premium payments in income support for different groups. Moreover, the Select Committee on Social Services said that it
"broadly accepted the principle of premiums reflecting the additional needs of individual client groups".
Therefore, I think that a substantial amount has been done, is being done and will continue to be done to meet the needs of people who face difficulties with fuel poverty through poor or low incomes. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will accept that we are sincere in our intention to help those people meet the difficulties that they face.
I also hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom of the approach that we set before the House in the White Paper today and that we shall seek to carry through in a Bill early in the new year. I am confident that when the House debates the Bill, it will take that view. I hope that it will carry the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues with it at that time.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern that people should be able to afford adequate heating. We share that concern and we shall continue to offer substantial assistance to that end, but we shall do so in a way that we regard as simpler and more effective than the current system. We believe that our proposals will meet those criteria and I hope that in due course they will be endorsed by the House and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North who raised the subject.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Storage
  Food Storage
  Cereal Stocks
  Cereal Stocks
  Veterinary Services
  Veterinary Services
  Less-productive Areas
  Less-productive Areas
  Crop Research
  Crop Research
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Magistrates
  Magistrates
PRIME MINISTER
  Honours List
  Honours List
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  British Atlantic Committee
  British Atlantic Committee
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Petitions)
  Prisoners (Petitions)
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  Departmental Appointments
  Departmental Appointments
  Pit Bull Terriers
  Pit Bull Terriers
  Foreign Visitors
  Foreign Visitors
  National Drugs Unit
  National Drugs Unit
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Reward Payments
  Reward Payments
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Detained Young Persons
  Detained Young Persons
  Cinemas (Safety) Regulations 1985
  Cinemas (Safety) Regulations 1985
  Freemasons
  Freemasons
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Emergencies
  Emergencies
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
ENVIRONMENT
  Water
  Water
  Z Scores
  Z Scores
  Retail Superstore Developments
  Retail Superstore Developments
  GLC (Land and Property)
  GLC (Land and Property)
  Holiday Project Funding
  Holiday Project Funding
  Thermal Insulation Standards (Building Regulations)
  Thermal Insulation Standards (Building Regulations)
  Building Controls (Inner London)
  Building Controls (Inner London)
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Channel Fixed Link
  Channel Fixed Link
  Sewer Collapse (North-West)
  Sewer Collapse (North-West)
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  London Forum
  London Forum
  Easiform Houses
  Easiform Houses
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Birtenshaw Farm, Bolton
  Birtenshaw Farm, Bolton
  Rugby Football (Grants)
  Rugby Football (Grants)
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
WALES
  Cycle Tracks
  Cycle Tracks
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Pupil Statistics
  Pupil Statistics
  Local Authorities (Capital Allocations)
  Local Authorities (Capital Allocations)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Advertising
  Advertising
  Electricity (Resale)
  Electricity (Resale)
  Television (Programme Schedules)
  Television (Programme Schedules)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Tobacco Industry (Grants and Loans)
  Tobacco Industry (Grants and Loans)
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Steel
  Steel
  Companies (Inspectors)
  Companies (Inspectors)
  Grant Aid (Worsley)
  Grant Aid (Worsley)
  Steel Council
  Steel Council
ENERGY
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Oil and Gas Development
  Oil and Gas Development
  British Gas
  British Gas
  Coal Conversion Scheme
  Coal Conversion Scheme
  Wind Energy
  Wind Energy
  Gas Meters (Accuracy)
  Gas Meters (Accuracy)
  Opencast Coal Mining
  Opencast Coal Mining
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Oil Sales
  Oil Sales
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  European Fast Reactor Collaboration
  European Fast Reactor Collaboration
  Capenhurst Enrichment Plant
  Capenhurst Enrichment Plant
  Coal Industry (Private Capital)
  Coal Industry (Private Capital)
  Power Stations (Coal Supplies)
  Power Stations (Coal Supplies)
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
  Nuclear Power Stations (Safety)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Safety)
  Continental Shelf
  Continental Shelf
  Hinckley Point
  Hinckley Point
CIVIL SERVICE
  Equal Opportunities Officer
  Equal Opportunities Officer
  Civil and Public Services Association
  Civil and Public Services Association
  Trade Unions (Meetings)
  Trade Unions (Meetings)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Philippines
  Philippines
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
  Israel (Trade Boycott)
  Israel (Trade Boycott)
  Tristan da Cunha
  Tristan da Cunha
  Departmental Appointments
  Departmental Appointments
THE ARTS
  Yorkshire Water Colour Society
  Yorkshire Water Colour Society
  British Library
  British Library
  British Film Institute
  British Film Institute
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  "Going to College or University"
  "Going to College or University"
  Trauma (Research)
  Trauma (Research)
  Schools (Lunchtime Supervision)
  Schools (Lunchtime Supervision)
  Parental Involvement
  Parental Involvement
  Science Budget
  Science Budget
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Youth Training Programme
  Youth Training Programme
  Construction Industry (Subcontractors)
  Construction Industry (Subcontractors)
  RUC (Code of Conduct)
  RUC (Code of Conduct)
TRANSPORT
  Dim-dip Lighting
  Dim-dip Lighting
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  M25 (Fog)
  M25 (Fog)
  Roads
  Roads
  Rail Electrification (Dorset)
  Rail Electrification (Dorset)
  M25-M1 Interchange
  M25-M1 Interchange
  Rail Closures
  Rail Closures
  A40 (Flyover)
  A40 (Flyover)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Road Haulage (Hazardous Substances)
  Road Haulage (Hazardous Substances)
  Motorways (Traffic Forecasts)
  Motorways (Traffic Forecasts)
  Traffic Control Systems
  Traffic Control Systems
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Air Agreements
  Air Agreements
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Home Civil Servants
  Home Civil Servants
  Assets (Disposals)
  Assets (Disposals)
  Budget Council
  Budget Council
  Crown Property
  Crown Property
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Construction Industry (Subcontractors)
  Construction Industry (Subcontractors)
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Special Employment and Training Programmes
  Special Employment and Training Programmes
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Construction Industry (Subcontractors)
  Construction Industry (Subcontractors)
  Construction Industry (Accidents)
  Construction Industry (Accidents)
  Barnsley
  Barnsley
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  "Burdens on Business"
  "Burdens on Business"
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
SCOTLAND
  Unemployment (Glasgow)
  Unemployment (Glasgow)
  Joint Finance Projects
  Joint Finance Projects
  Support Finance
  Support Finance
  Joint Plans
  Joint Plans
  Joint Liaison Committees
  Joint Liaison Committees
  Agricultural Colleges
  Agricultural Colleges
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  Road Works (A92)
  Road Works (A92)
  Construction Industry (Subcontractors)
  Construction Industry (Subcontractors)
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  Tobacco Industry (Grants and Loans)
  Tobacco Industry (Grants and Loans)
  Sea Fisheries Order
  Sea Fisheries Order
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Detained Young Persons
  Detained Young Persons
  Death Statistics
  Death Statistics
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Teachers (Independent Review)
  Teachers (Independent Review)
  Tourism
  Tourism
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Oral Questions (Northern Ireland)
  Oral Questions (Northern Ireland)
  Personnel Statistics
  Personnel Statistics
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS Patients (Private Hospitals)
  NHS Patients (Private Hospitals)
  Rate Rebate (Lambeth)
  Rate Rebate (Lambeth)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  NHS (Overseas Visitors)
  NHS (Overseas Visitors)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Mentally-ill Patients
  Mentally-ill Patients
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Low Income Families
  Low Income Families
  Pensions
  Pensions
  National Health Service (Rural Areas)
  National Health Service (Rural Areas)
  Mr. A. D. Hickson
  Mr. A. D. Hickson
  Ship Engine Rooms (Noise)
  Ship Engine Rooms (Noise)
  Hyperbaric Oxygen
  Hyperbaric Oxygen
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Doctors (Computers)
  Doctors (Computers)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Mammographic Screening
  Mammographic Screening
  Disability (Dietary Factors)
  Disability (Dietary Factors)
  Immunisation Policy
  Immunisation Policy
  Construction Industry (Safety)
  Construction Industry (Safety)
  Applications and Appeals (Ayr)
  Applications and Appeals (Ayr)
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Family Planning Association
  Family Planning Association
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Death Statistics
  Death Statistics
  Children (Statistics)
  Children (Statistics)
  "Reform of Social Security"
  "Reform of Social Security"
  National Health Service Hospitals
  National Health Service Hospitals
  Review of Nursing Skill Mix
  Review of Nursing Skill Mix
DEFENCE
  HMS Resolution (Crewmen)
  HMS Resolution (Crewmen)
  Bolton and Bury (Defence Establishments)
  Bolton and Bury (Defence Establishments)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Faslane (Construction Work)
  Faslane (Construction Work)
  VC10 Tankers
  VC10 Tankers
  Nimrod
  Nimrod
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
  14 Signals Regiment
  14 Signals Regiment
  9 Signals Regiment
  9 Signals Regiment
  Royal Air Force (Aircrew)
  Royal Air Force (Aircrew)
  Signals Regiments
  Signals Regiments
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment

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

Royal British Legion Homes: VAT
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the homes for the disabled owned and run by the Royal British Legion are subject to value added tax when refurbishment and renovation work is carried out and, if this is the case, why as a registered charity the Royal British Legion are subject to this tax.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, certain building alterations which improve access for the disabled are relieved of VAT when supplied to charities such as the Royal British Legion. Alterations and repairs not covered by this relief are liable to VAT as there is no general relief for registered charities from VAT on goods and services which they buy.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that detailed reply, but is he aware that that is where my thanks must conclude? Speaking in a non-financial capacity as president of the Royal British Legion for the county of Surrey, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that £350,000 is recoverable in value added tax from these improvements? Would he not agree that this is a very nasty rebuff for those who have given their limbs and sometimes their minds in the service of their country? Would he ask his right honourable friend to reconsider this matter and also the whole question of charities of this nature which are suffering very badly from this terrible tax?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I entirely understand my noble friend's concern about building alterations being brought within the scope of value added tax. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering representations from the charities' VAT reform group. A meeting was held at the Treasury only last week. But my noble friend will be aware that we have always felt that the right way to go about supporting the voluntary sector is through direct grants and direct tax reliefs. Those have been increased enormously since 1979.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, there really is no justification—is there?—for a tax of this kind being imposed on a body like the Royal British Legion and it really is a squalid Answer that the Minister has given. If there is any goodwill at all—and there must
528
surely be, for this is not a party point—towards organisations like this there is nothing beyond the wit of man in devising immediate relief for people like this.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, for reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, will know, we have always reckoned that the way to go about helping the voluntary sector was, as I have said, through direct grants and direct tax reliefs. Perhaps I ought just to spell out that direct grants for the voluntary sector have more than doubled since 1979. The total of grants to voluntary organisations from all government agencies is well in excess of £1,000 million a year. Direct tax reliefs for the benefit of charities have been substantially increased since 1979 and are now worth £400 million. As this Question is about the Royal British Legion, which all of us enormously admire, perhaps it is right just to say that the Royal British Legion Housing Association Limited received £25 million from public funds last year; and I am delighted that is the case.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while my noble friend is right to draw attention to the very proper actions of the Government in general, in view of the fact that he himself has disclosed that some of this work is relieved of VAT charges, surely it would be both rational and easy to extend this to cover all work and thereby prevent money subscribed by the public from being subjected to an unexpected and unwelcome tax?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think there is a difficulty, about which my noble friend knows probably better than I, in exempting all charities from VAT. The chief among the difficulties is that it would be an indiscriminate way of bringing help because the benefits would depend much more on the pattern of spending of an individual charity than on the level of public support which a charity attracts. It is for that reason that I come back to the basic point that we have believed in the last six years that the way to go about it is to improve direct grants and direct tax reliefs—and we have done an enormous amount in those six years.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord said that representations from charitable organisations are currently being considered by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues at the Treasury. Can he say to his noble friend in the House that this particular point is also being considered as part of that study and therefore something might conceivably emerge in the Budget on the point?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand that this point was raised at a meeting on 11th December with my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury. I should be misleading the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, if I did not remind the House that it is of course difficult to protect charities from every Budget change. I repeat that what is possible and what we have done is to increase direct aid to charities and to the voluntary sector.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have some more disturbing figures? If I were to let him have them, would he ask his right honourable friend to consider them very closely?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, indeed I shall most certainly do that if my noble friend will get in touch with me.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, if the Minister of State is thinking about the matter, cannot the noble Lord send a message to him saying that when he raised the matter in the House of Lords he really had not got a word to say because everybody was against him? Is it not time that he came to the Minister's assistance?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that may be the view of the noble Lord, Lord Paget. I am not quite so sure that the taxpayers generally in this country would be all that pleased if in an indiscriminate way all charities were simply relieved of VAT and the taxpayers were asked to make up the difference. What I think the individual taxpayer understands is that where help is most needed it should be brought to bear effectively; and, my goodness! the present Government have done this, as is shown by the figures that I have already given to the House.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that the expression "charity" covers such a very wide spectrum of bodies that to give any generalised exemption could have results far beyond anything that any of us here would wish? I speak as the honorary president of the British War Widows' Association and I have extremely great sympathy with the Royal British Legion. If some sort of general exemption from VAT is to be considered, would it not be necessary almost to reclassify the charities, because while there are some we would all wish to see supported there are others such as educational institutions which I do not know have the same claim to our general sympathy?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that to start to reclassify charities would be very difficult indeed. I am grateful to my noble friend, however, for pointing out the difficult and uncertain territory we would get into if we started going down the road suggested in this Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that no one would dispute the figures he has given but this is a very special problem which faces the Royal British Legion? Many of us think that the state should have accepted this responsibility because, were it not for the Royal British Legion, literally hundreds of thousands of disabled British ex-servicemen would have practically nowhere to go. There is an additional problem. They were disabled as young men and as they grow older—like most of us now, many are aged between 60 and 70—they face additional problems because they are limbless or severely disabled. May I put this plea to the Minister very simply. Would he be gracious enough to see the specialist committee of the Royal British Legion, which is itself voluntary and knows all about this problem? Its members have devoted their lives to it. Would he ask his honourable
530
friend whether he would be prepared to see a small deputation from us? If so, I am sure that a reasonable solution can be reached.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sure my honourable friend would be only too pleased to do that. My right honourable friend is of course, as it were, in purdah before the Budget so far as representations are concerned. On the second part of the question, may I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that I entirely agree with him that we have everything to be thankful for to those who are represented by the Royal British Legion, and not least my own generation. However, I do not agree with the noble Lord that this should simply be thrown on to the state. Surely the way to do it is to have a splendid organisation like the Royal British Legion, which raises huge sums of money through its Poppy Day appeal—an appeal which of course lies totally outside the scope of VAT.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the Minister laid much emphasis on direct grants to charities, but is he aware that many charities receive no direct grant of any kind but nevertheless suffer very much from this particular aspect of VAT in regard to what the Question describes as, "refurbishment and renovation work"?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think I recognised in my first Answer to my noble friend that the change in the scope for alterations regarding VAT had a serious bearing on charities, and I therefore take seriously what the noble Lord said on this matter.

Liquor Control at Sporting Events
2.47 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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 conclusions they have drawn following the implementation of the Sporting Events (Control of Liquor etc.) Act 1985.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it is too soon to draw firm conclusions about the impact of this Act, but the police believe that it is making a useful contribution to dealing with the problem of football hooliganism.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but is the Minister aware that this is a very traumatic time for football clubs, particularly on the financial side? I wonder whether the Minister saw a television broadcast on Saturday in which the Watford Football Club and Elton John were involved, pointing out the grave problem involving clubs which wish to proceed with developing their grounds, and especially the executive boxes, and yet are unable to do so because of the provisions of this Act? I wonder whether the Minister recalls the conversations in which we took part when

531
we said that if time showed there was a need, legislation which was currently to go through the House concerning the Public Order Bill might be used as a means of putting down some amendments. Could the Minister be helpful on that point?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are monitoring the situation very closely. The Football League have supplied some information, and we have asked for further details to be provided at the end of the year with a view to considering the possibility of an amendment during the later stages of the Public Order Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware yet of figures showing improvement in regard to violence at football grounds and therefore possibly ascribable to the Act? Furthermore, is he concerned with the question of obtaining drink outside the premises of the football grounds, and, if so, are the Government contemplating any further legislation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, again I think it is too soon to draw firm conclusions about effectiveness in reducing the incidence of hooliganism within the grounds. However, there has been a falling off in the serious incidence of hooliganism so far this season, taking the season as a whole. Of course we are only about halfway through the season so far. On the noble Lord's latter point, yes, we are keeping a careful eye on it. However, there is no legislation within sight.

Tenants' Complaints to Local Authorities
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: 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 monitoring of the performance of local authorities has been undertaken subsequent to the request made in paragraph 117 of Circular 21/84 and on how many occasions have chief environmental health officers notified chief housing officers of defects subsequent to tenants' complaints.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government do not monitor such matters unless they have reason to believe that councils are neglecting their responsibilities. We will review this matter, should evidence come to light.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply? It is essential that action is taken, because far too few tenants know of their rights under the Act. Perhaps some information could be given to them—probably through advertisement in the local papers, and so on—to tell them their rights, since in many cases the houses are getting into a very bad state of repair.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in our Circular 21/84 dated 15th August last year, I was able to encourage my Department to insert paragraph 117, to which my noble friend has referred in her original
532
Question. That asks councils to introduce and publish arrangements under such cases, and I have no reason to believe that they have not done just that.
Baroness David: My Lords, paragraph 117 of the circular to which the Minister has just referred admits that there is a lack of parity between the way that council tenants and private tenants are treated. Therefore would it not be better if the environmental health officers had the right, if council tenants made complaints to them, to take them to the housing committee which is held in public, so that tenants would know their grievances were really attended to and could not just be put aside on a shelf?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course in an ideal world that would not happen, because although I readily accept that environmental health officers are council employees and thus cannot serve a notice on their own council, both public and private tenants have common law rights.

Rape Offenders and Parole
2.51 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, pursuant to the reply given by the Minister on 5th March 1985 (Official Report, cols. 1203–5), whether they have any plans to review these procedures for the parole of persons convicted of rape.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Parole Board continue to treat each case on its merits. Prisoners serving sentences of over five years for rape are, however, granted parole only in exceptional circumstances. Action is being taken in the light of the Pollard case to ensure that the decision on whether or not to grant parole in such cases is taken on the basis of the best possible information.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, bearing in mind the Answer that I received on a previous occasion that one case, however bad, was not viewed seriously enough to activate a review of the whole system, whether he is aware that since that case there have been at least three others where the person convicted for violent rape has been paroled and has committed the same act on a girl of 17 and on a girl of 13, luckily with no death in the physical sense? There is ample evidence that the crime of rape is increasing. I understand that in the debate in another place figures showed that it had increased by 30 per cent. over the last six months. Is it not time we decided that the women of this nation require and receive some increased protection against a bestial crime?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord really has asked a bundle of quite separate questions. His original Question was confined to the matter of

533
parole and I am not sure that I would not be wise to confine myself to that. In the case to which his original Question earlier this year related, the Parole Board had not been informed of a vital fact and my answer was designed to bring out the fact that that had now been considered in the light of the past. Although I would be very happy to answer questions about the general question of rape, its incidence, its motivation and the protection of women, I think that the Question itself related to a particular case where the Parole Board was clearly to be exonerated of any blame at all, because it had not been given the vital piece of information which would have put it on notice that there was a danger of a renewed attack on the same victim. I must also remind the noble Lord that in that case the renewed offence was one of murder and what happened was that the prisoner got out on parole and murdered his former victim of rape.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, however gravely and distastefully all Members of your Lordships' House may regard the offence of rape, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his answer that each case is to be treated on its merits is consistent with our normal acceptance of justice? Is he also aware that many of us accept with very great pleasure his assurance that, in future, the Parole Board will be given all material information with the greatest care?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his helpful supplementary question. Cases of rape cover a very wide spectrum, as we were reminded, I think, a week or two ago, when my noble friend Lady Masham asked a Question which was answered by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. Of course, they must be treated on their merits, but I think the public is increasingly concerned at the increase of the incidence of rape, and especially of the incidence of rape of two particularly unpleasant kinds. I think that gives rise not to the question of parole, to which the noble Lord's Question was limited, but to much more general questions which are certainly worthy of discussion in Parliament.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many women were very appreciative of the speech that he made in connection with this particular and horrible crime, and hope that in future further discussion can be taken forward on several points in connection with this offence?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness for what she said. If the House will bear with me for a moment—being perhaps a little irrelevant to the actual Question—our system of sentencing is, of course, a matter for the independent judiciary basing itself on each case. But as the House will be aware, matters can go before the Court of Appeal only if a sentence is alleged to be excessive, and there is no mechanism whatever whereby the Court of Appeal can consider a sentence which is alleged to be too lenient. Moreover, it is not enough in my judgment—I may be wrong—to say, "Well, they can give general guidelines." Each case needs to be examined in the context of its own matrix of fact and
534
it is not enough to say, "Well, you can do it on the appeals which come before it." The Lord Chief Justice has given very good guidelines, so far as guidelines can be given, in the case of Roberts, with which the noble Baroness is probably familiar, but in my opinion there is a defect in our law.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is rather disturbing that after many years of existence the Parole Board is not given vital information?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in this particular case I think it is disturbing, but, on the other hand, I must be a little more specific than that. What happened was that there was an explicit threat at the time of the original rape that the assailant would commit another. Curiously enough, this is not an uncommon circumstance. My subjective opinion—that is to say, a purely personal opinion—is that always where such a threat is made the facts should be put before the Parole Board. But, in fact, it is made quite often and in the great majority of cases it is meant in order to ensure that the original rape is committed without resistance or without calling for help and does not really involve a serious threat for the future. I think myself—if I am asked for a personal opinion—that the Parole Board should always be given this information, but this is not the view which is universally held and I think the view which I ought to put before the House is the one which is the wisdom of the many, which is that the police in providing information should use their professional judgment in the light of the threat which has been originally made.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the very detailed replies he has given, but is he aware that in the first case, which prompted the original Question some months ago, not only was the woman murdered but before she was murdered a vicious rape took place? I put the point in my first supplementary question today that there have been at least two subsequent cases in which the parole board, knowing all the facts, have in fact paroled people who were convicted of violent rape and then those people have again committed that crime. Is it not time that the situation was looked at and people were given better protection than they are getting at present?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was fully aware of the original supplementary question of the noble Lord. I am sorry that my answers have perhaps been a little too detailed, but this is a difficult and important area.
There are two factors that have to be borne in mind here. The first is that if you are going to have a system of parole there will be a certain number of cases in which the parole is broken in different kinds of way. I was of course aware that the murder of the particular victim had been preceded by rape, although I still regard murder as more important than rape itself, bad though rape undoubtedly is.
I do not think that you can altogether dissociate the question of parole from the question of the original sentence and its adequacy. I have already referred in my original Answer to the rule which has since been adopted that, if the sentence is more than five years,

535
parole is to be given only in exceptional circumstances. I think you must also remember in relation to the parole system that one of its objects is to put the paroled criminal under a period of supervision in the outside world. That in itself is thought to reduce the possibility of recidivism, and not to increase it. These are factors which have to be considered. Rape is itself a particularly vicious and abominable crime, but I think the question of sentencing cannot be altogether dissociated from parole; nor can rape be altogether dissociated from other crimes of disgusting violence.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Trumpington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Social Security White Paper. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on Westlands.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Shops Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Foods) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1985 and the Second Reading of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Bill will be taken.

Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
3.5 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I just want to give a word of welcome to this Bill. I have fought in Parliament for more than half a century for the inshore fishing industry and have seen it facing total ruin on at least three occasions. Today I see it enjoying a greater prosperity than it has ever known. I should like to pay my tribute to the Government not least for negotiating the best fisheries agreement with the countries of Europe that we have ever had. I hope now very much that a similar Bill will come to us from another place affecting Peterhead harbour. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that the Government will do what they can to facilitate this, because I believe that at the moment it is being held up for no good reasons in another place. Having said that, I wish only to thank the Government and to congratulate them.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for his kind words of welcome for this Bill. So far as another place, and another place in Scotland, are concerned, I am afraid that I have no information to give him at this moment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fraserburgh Harbour (No. 2) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.
Fraserburgh Harbour (No. 3) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Removal of restrictions on opening hours and Sunday trading]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. A1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Provided that premises where a retail trade is carried on may be open for trading for up to four hours on any Sunday,").
The noble Lord said: The objective of this amendment is very simple and, in my view, realistic, and should do a great deal to prevent the disputes that have been going on for such a long time about the scope of the Bill. The objective is this: all the shops Acts and the trading Acts referred to in Clause 1 will be abolished, just as the Government desire, so that all shops and places where retail trade or business is carried on may sell whatever goods they wish. But if my amendment is carried this free trading on Sunday will not be for the whole of the Sunday as the Government Bill provides but just for four hours. In other words, the amendment would permit deregulation on Sundays as the Government desire, not for all the day but only for four hours.
There is no magic about four hours. It could perhaps be five or six hours. The period could be before or after lunch, just as the shop thinks fit. Your Lordships will have heard many cases put forward at Second Reading to support that kind of period for Sunday trading, leaving certain parts of the day where there is no free trading. I agree that a change in the present law is very necessary, but in my view the Government have gone too far on deregulation without giving adequate reasons why the free trading should last for the whole of the day.
The difference between my amendment and what the Government are proposing is merely the length of time over which free trading is allowed. The Government say that it should be all day and my amendment says that it should be for only four hours in that day. I have been encouraged to put down this

537
amendment as a direct result of my studying the Government's speeches at Second Reading. The objection of the Government to some regulation—that will include my regulation, presumably—as against total deregulation rests mainly on what I submit is a false premise: that no modified form for deregulation can be adequately enforced. I can see no other reason put forward by the Government for total deregulation, except primarily that of whether it can be enforced.
As my noble friend Lady Seear has pointed out, there are many cases where total enforcement of the law is not practicable but where in any event such a law acts as a deterrent. I do not propose to review the number of cases to that effect that were cited on Second Reading, but it is very interesting, in support of my amendment, to recall how on Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, dealt with the question of partial deregulation.
Her reply was based on the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I am sorry that I could not find the noble Lord to inform him that I was intending to refer to his speech. The noble Baroness the Minister said at col. 1170, in the last complete paragraph, that she endorsed the view of her noble friend Lord Sandford. The question then arises: what was his view? The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, first of all emphasised that the acid test would be the difficulty or otherwise of enforcement. The noble Lord twice referred to that as being the acid test. When he came to illustrate the position in his speech, the only case that he put before your Lordships, with great skill, was that which had been reported recently in the law reports where a local authority had gone to the court about a definition of what was a souvenir. In the shop in question there were jerseys and other items on sale as well as souvenirs. The question arose whether, having regard to the Shops Act, those goods were not permitted to be sold during the Sunday in question.
My amendment is directed to something quite different. There will be no question at all, if the Committee is good enough to pass this amendment, of any discussion about the nature of the goods. There has been difficulty about enforcement in that respect, in deciding whether particular goods fall into such a class that they can be sold on a Sunday. I say again that my amendment proposes deregulation as to the nature of the goods. Let us abolish the Shops Act and instead place a limit on the number of hours that goods may be offered for sale.
If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, wishes me to go on and to deal in detail with the course of his argument, I shall do so. I would then ask your Lordships' indulgence because the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is president of the Association of District Councils and his contribution is entitled to carry great weight. But his argument does not affect in any way the basis of my submission on this amendment.
The acid test for proposals for regulation therefore reduces itself merely to this, in relation to my amendment: can the regulation be enforced? What would have to be enforced? It would be the fact that a shop is allowed to be open to sell any goods for only a specific period. There would be a time allocation for such free trading. There has been no answer from the
538
Government on the kind of deregulation that relates only to hours of business and not to the nature of the business.
3.15 p.m.
I pray in aid a brief reference to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who at col. 1126 of the Second Reading debate said that the view of the Institute of shops Inspectors caused no problems in enforcement. Then I understand that there is evidence before your Lordships from the Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Administration, which has said that there is no real difficulty about enforcement.
What would happen if the Committee was to accept this simple amendment limiting free trading to four hours on a Sunday? There would have to be notices in the shops as to the period of trading; everybody would know that the shop was allowed to trade for only a particular number of hours. Enforcement would not therefore create a great deal of difficulty. As I am sure members of the Committee who serve on licensing benches as justices of the peace know, limitations about the sale of liquor are made according to hours; and of course the prices of the goods there have to be shown.
I want to be very specific to the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply. I am saying that so far the Government do not appear to have dealt with the view that there should be free trading on a Sunday by the abolition of the Shops Act, entirely as the Government wish, except that it should be during a period limited to four hours. The question of the actual number of hours is perhaps one for discussion. There may also have to be certain by-laws imposed by the local authority concerned. There may be certain minor matters that will have to be raised. However, the fundamental point remains that my amendment would have the effect that free trading would be limited to four hours on a Sunday. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have only read the noble Lord's amendment since the moment that he rose to his feet to move it, since I have been working on the main Marshalled List, but it seems to me that there are two profound difficulties in accepting it. The first is one with which the noble Lord himself dealt; namely, the difficulty of enforcement. With all respect, the noble Lord is not quite correct in saying that nobody has yet faced the solution of this problem by limitation of hours. It has been faced constantly in relation to opening hours during weekdays.
That point was faced by the Gowers Committee, whose recommendations were not accepted. That committee, as quoted by the Auld Report, said that now was the time at last for consideration of the interests of the consumer. That question was faced by the Gowers Committee, but instead of its recommendation being accepted we had something that everybody now agrees is quite unacceptable—the 1950 consolidation Act. So the difficulties of enforcement, on which I have no doubt the Minister will be able to provide much more information, seem to me to be just as great in relation to Sunday as they are in relation to weekdays. Indeed, they are more difficult because undoubtedly it would be harder to employ police and local authority officials to work on Sundays

539
in order to prevent people freely trading, as the noble Lord emphasised was important; to prevent a willing buyer and a willing seller from coming together at the moment that suits them both to strike a bargain.
One aspect of this matter was not emphasised on Second Reading, though both sides of the question of freedom generally were discussed with great wisdom. It is not only freedom and liberty that is in question, it is also the freedom of the market place. It is a democratic freedom. We pride ourselves on our system of representative democracy, Parliamentary democracy. Once every four years or so we choose our representatives in Parliament. Of course, it is absurd to say that we are free only at that time—only democratically influencing the decisions that affect ourselves every four years. That election throws a shadow forward and back. But the democracy of the market place—the quotidian democracy—is something much more immediate.
There, every day is a general election. Every shop is a polling booth. Every penny laid down on the counter or at the till is a vote for various candidates that are produced for the favour of the shopper. That is a day-to-day immediate democracy. Moreover, the exercise of that democratic vote in the shops influences the whole process of production. The producer is rewarded for meeting the choice of the elector in the shop. He is particularly rewarded if he foresees it and produces, say, a pocket calculator in place of an abacus; or even, these days, produces a pocket computer. That is the day-to-day democracy of the market place for free trade.
Why should we restrain it to only four hours if the willing buyer and the willing seller choose to come together outside those four hours? So there is first the difficulty of enforcement and secondly the limitation of freedom; but, thirdly, there is something much more fundamental—that is, the amendment, like so many others on the Marshalled List, is going back on the decision that our Lordships made at Second Reading.
We owe it greatly to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that he defined precisely what we were deciding. Should it be total deregulation or should it be partial deregulation? Your Lordships solemnly, distinctly and clearly, decided that it should be total deregulation. Your Lordships cannot possibly accept this amendment, or the many others, without making a complete mockery of that decision. I have the greatest respect, based on long acquaintance, for the noble Lord and I hope that I shall not be thought to be disrespectful when I say that this is an abuse of the parliamentary process.
Lord Jacques: I challenge the statement that this is an abuse of parliamentary procedure. That is nonsense. What happened was that at Second Reading there was an amendment that the Motion should be qualified. Many who voted against that amendment did so because they thought that it was not the time to make the qualification and that once the Bill had been agreed in principle there would, at a later stage, be an opportunity of considering the details in the Bill and making amendments to it. That is normal practice. It is nothing to do with abuse of parliamentary procedure.
Baroness Lockwood: Like the noble and learned Lord, I saw the amendment only a few minutes ago. Unlike him, I do not oppose it on the basis of principle, but I wonder whether or not it will help. There are one or two practical difficulties which I see in this amendment and I should like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to clarify them if possible.
The first point is this: from when is this four-hour period to run? Are they to be the four hours which are applied to all shops or will shops, individually, be able to select which particular four hours of the day they will be open? If that is so, it might present some difficulties. After all, we all want our Sunday newspapers in the morning. Most of us who intend to do a bit of gardening want to go to the garden centre on a Sunday afternoon. There are the shops in the cathedrals and at ancient monuments that many of us like to look at during the course of a Sunday. Will they be limited to four hours? If so, there will be difficulties for those who choose to visit such places at the wrong hour of the day.
This restriction would also apply to those who are travelling. Is the amendment to be right across the board and apply to all points of sale? Again, I ask about those people who are about to embark upon a road or rail journey or who are departing from one of our airports. Are they to be limited to four hours in the day in which they can purchase whatever they might want to purchase from the airport, whether a bar of chocolate or whatever? Or are certain retail outlets to be excluded from the Bill by this amendment? If so, the amendment would not be quite as simple as the noble Lord suggested. I appreciate the point that the noble Lord is making. He is looking for an amendment which will be straightforward and easy to apply. However, I think that this amendment might be difficult in that respect.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to follow the point made by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. The amendment refers to,
"premises where a retail trade is carried on".
My noble friend mentioned airports. I recently did some research. There are thousands of garage forecourts which now sell almost everything. There are antique sales everywhere. There are car boot sales. These take place in all sorts of premises, but technically they are carrying out retail trade. Does the noble Lord want me to go on?
I notice that my friends in the Institute of Shops Inspectors say that it presents no problems. However, if it has not presented any problems I am staggered to think why my borough, in which one can buy almost everything at any time on a Sunday, does not seem to have had any prosecutions for a long time. I assumed that it was because they could not enforce the law. I now see that it is because they obviously did not want to enforce the law, which is rather different. To be quite practical about this, we all know how people get round any law of that kind. If one shop is to be open at one time of the day and other shops at other times the analogy of licensing is not an accurate one, because at present licensed premises are all open or closed at the same time. Therefore, I think this is a totally impractical suggestion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Like other noble Lords, I have only just seen this amendment and therefore I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will forgive me if I ask him a very simple question as to its meaning. Does the amendment mean that the four-hour limit shall be applied only to those shops authorised by the Bill? Or will it also bite on shops which already lawfully open on Sundays? It is an important point which the noble Lord owes it to the Committee to clarify.
3.30 p.m.
Secondly, on the merits of the matter—and I am bound to say I think this will sound rather an Irish expression—I see very few merits. I understand the point of view of those who oppose shop opening on Sundays; indeed, the fact that we have the pleasure of having with us this afternoon as many right reverend Prelates as we have on our Christmas card (those on the Christmas card were acquitted of course) indicates that there are people who feel very strongly about the principle of Sunday opening. Others, of whom I must confess I am one, do not feel that in this day and age it is right to restrict Sunday opening. Views are strongly held on both sides.
But four hours is neither one thing nor the other. It will give those who work in these shops a considerable interruption in their Sunday if they are to work for the four hours of the shop's opening, plus the time for preparation, plus the time of getting there, plus the time of closing up and of leaving. They will not have very much of a free day on Sunday if the shops are to open for four hours. On the other hand, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has said, it will deprive the public of the right to shop on a Sunday, which many of us think the public are entitled to do.
Therefore, with very great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for whom I have a sincere admiration, I say that his amendment is really neither one thing nor the other and I suggest that this assembly must make up its mind, as I thought had been done on Second Reading, whether we are to go for real deregulation or for a half-hearted compromise which will please nobody.
Lord Stallard: I should like to rise for a minute to support my noble friend Lord Jacques who voiced some reservation about the statement made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who said that this amendment was an abuse of the procedures of the House. He said it to fairly loud cheers from the Government side of the Committee.
I do not hide the fact that I was opposed to Sunday trading at all costs—any Sunday trading at all—and I have not changed my views greatly in this respect; but I was prepared to listen to amendments and to support them after the Second Reading debate, when we took a decision in principle which I accepted entirely, and I came back ready to debate amendments which would improve the Bill along general lines. I see no abuse at all and I say to the Government spokesman, who cheered the noble and learned Lord when he said that this was an abuse, that he must think again. There is no abuse in coming back here and amending a Bill after Second Reading.
542
If that is to be the attitude of the Government, then we are in for an even longer session than we have had on previous occasions. I shall certainly resist any attempts by the Government to say that any amendment of the Bill that they do not agree with is an abuse of parliamentary privilege. I should like the Minister to clear that point up immediately, or when he speaks, because that is not how I see it.
I must take exception to the fairly puerile Irish joke made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has just sat down. I think we are all sick of that kind of racism, which ought not to be brought into this kind of debate at all. If he has a point to make there are many other ways of making it without resorting to that kind of tactic. The noble Lord says that he cannot understand why the four hours would be acceptable. He seems to imply that there has to be a length of time, and that it must be an all-day session because there is a public demand.
I must confess that since the Second Reading I have been trying to do my own research about the public demand in my own area and I cannot find it. There is no great public demand for any opening time beyond that which already exists, let alone opening for all hours, which the noble Lord seemed to imply when he said that four hours would not be enough to satisfy the demand for extra shopping hours and the public would need more than four hours. I know what his meaning is—that is what he said. He said they would need much more than four hours to satisfy this demand. The public demand does not exist. If it did, I am sure that four hours would be ample and we ought to discuss it therefore on those lines.
I hope that we shall discuss constructively all the amendments on the Order Paper, because there is a great deal to be discussed in this particular Bill, and that we shall be told by the Minister that we are within parliamentary procedure in so doing.
Lord Sandford: I should like to comment from this side, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned my name. After the very cogent way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has spoken in opposing this amendment, I myself do not think there is very much more to be said. If I may say so, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, dealt with any of the objections listed in the Auld Report from paragraph 53 onwards about flexibility of opening hours. But the noble Lord asked me to comment on the enforceability aspect of all this.
The amendment of the noble Lord introduces a welcome measure of flexibility in a matter of this kind. As I understand it, it allows shops to choose which hours they want to remain open, when they want to start, when they end, whether they open for two hours in the morning, two hours in the evening, or four hours at lunch-time or whatever they do. But if that is his intention, and it is clear from the wording of the amendment that is what he has in mind, then enforceability amounts to quite a considerable operation. I suggest that one needs to remember that Leeds, for instance, has 2,000 shops, Southwark has 1,100, so has Leicester, and Reading has 450 shops. All those shops, or at any rate a substantial sample of them, have to be inspected every Sunday to see whether the terms of the little board—which they are not obliged to have by this

543
amendment—saying when the shop will be open are being adhered to and whether the board that was in force last month is still in force this month, and so on and so forth. If that is not a major activity being laid on the shoulders of the local authorities, I do not know what is.
Lord Galpern: During the Second Reading of this Bill references were constantly made to the position in Scotland and many people accepted the arguments that if this position was good enough for Scotland, then it would be good enough to be extended to England and Wales. I can assure your Lordships that in Scotland, where Sunday opening has been operating for quite a number of years now, 90 per cent. of the retailers open between 12 and 5, allowing half an hour only for the assistants' lunch period.
The reason for that is an omission which I think attends the discussion of this Bill: that governing Sunday opening is the effect of the wages council upon Sunday opening, because it lays down that a shop assistant who works for four-and-a-half hours shall receive double pay for four-and-a-half hours. If he works for five hours or more, he has to be paid double pay for eight hours, even if he works for only six hours or something just over the four-and-a-half hours. So the practice has developed, because of what the wages council says in relation to the payment which has to be made to the assistant, that 90 per cent. of shops do not open longer than from 12 to 5, giving assistants half-an-hour's break, so that they are paid double rates for only four-and-a-half hours.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I ask the noble Lord, since he speaks with authority on this matter, whether this limitation on hours applies also to petrol stations, which are "shops" within the definition?
Lord Galpern: No, but I do not think that we are discussing the question of petrol. We have accepted the sale of petrol as being something which already entails Sunday opening. It is something which the entire British people accept, without needing to have Bills in that respect.
I am referring to retail establishments which are to employ assistants not knowing at this stage whether the wages councils will be abolished—and I know it is on the cards. But the opening hours are governed by the rates of pay laid down by the wages councils and it is remarkable that not any of the establishments, beyond the odd one or two, opens for longer than from 12 to 5 p.m.
There is the other argument, of course. A fellow who has not been employed by an establishment before the Act comes into operation and who then wants a situation will be compelled to work on a Sunday. It would not be unreasonable for someone to have to work the four hours suggested, but let him enjoy some of the sunshine in the summer or during other periods of the year and be with his family. Otherwise the time will be extended. With the wages councils being abolished and with no rate laid down for people who work over the four hours, a person should be entitled to be with his family other than for the four hours that he is asked to work.
Lord Coleraine: I shall not follow noble Lords in dealing with the problems of shopworkers. We shall come to that at a later stage. My noble friend Lord Sandford referred to the cogent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Indeed, it was cogent. He seemed particularly concerned with every day being a polling day in the local supermarket. I do not propose to follow him down the populist line approach there. The noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Stallard, answered the point that he was making about the propriety or otherwise of the amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that it is perfectly proper, notwithstanding the failure to pass the amendment at Second Reading. The noble and learned Lord, it seemed to me, would rather that we had no Committee debate at all on the question of Sunday opening.
I should like for a moment to refer to the Auld Report on the point at which the noble and learned Lord started, and that was the question of enforceability. As I read it, the report is clear. If one attaches variable Sunday openings to the existing restrictions on what can be sold in shops, we have something that is quite unenforceable. I do not think that the report is arguing that if we allow shops to sell what they will on Sunday, the law then becomes unenforceable. The only reference that I can find in the report is to the Massachusetts situation, where general trading on Sunday is permitted in the afternoons, but only limited trading, mainly by small shops, in the mornings. It says on page 52:
"some of the larger stores are causing problems by opening their doors before the officially permitted time of noon".
I should have thought that something as simple as that could be perfectly well dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has a good idea. I do not suppose that the amendment is all that it should be at the moment, but I certainly support his idea that we should have a choice of four hours for shops to open on Sundays when they wish.
Baroness Lane-Fox: The Consumers' Association considers that all the half-way measures of reform proposed in the amendments to the Bill will inevitably create new anomalies and new problems of enforcement. I am constantly amazed to find how much I can already buy on a Sunday which is not allowed to be bought on a Sunday. In other words, the law is being flouted. This amendment will encourage the law to be broken in further little complicated ways. In my view to support the amendment is to vote for a bonanza for the lawyers. I consider that the amendment would do nothing other than that and also canvass great inconvenience.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise at least to welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. Like other noble Lords, I should perhaps have preferred earlier notice of his intention so that we could consider yet another option. But if the Government and their supporters really believe that the battle was fought and won or lost at Second Reading, they should seriously reflect not merely on the issues but on the proper use, duty and responsibility of this House.

545
I cannot believe that noble Lords opposite will support the Government in saying, as I suspect they will say, "Out, out!", to every amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said that the issue was complete or partial deregulation. At Second Reading the Minister introduced another phrase—"substantial deregulation". We have to decide whether substantial deregulation is complete deregulation or less than complete but not quite partial deregulation. I believe that substantial deregulation at least provides the opportunity for some movement away from complete deregulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is putting before the Committee something less than complete deregulation. I and others feel that anything less than total is preferable to total opening. If, for instance, we are talking about the possible Sunday trading day being 12 hours, anything less than that is preferable. There are amendments down on the Order Paper for shops to be open until 1 p.m. or 6 p.m. This is another amendment; it is a variation. It bristles with anomalies; that is true, but noble Lords who support it if it comes to a Division will weigh them against what they consider to be the disaster and catastrophe of the Bill going through completely unamended.
I accept the sincerity of those who argue not so much that the legislation is unenforceable but that it is difficult to enforce. But the shop inspectors' institute says that whenever it has had the support and the resources its members have found no difficulty in enforcing the existing law. It stands by that. Some people may be puzzled because of the two qualifications "support" and "resources". That may be the answer to noble Lords who wonder why various matters have not been checked. But noble Lords are constantly saying that the legislation is unenforceable and does not work. Those whose job it is to make sure that it does say that it works whenever they have the support and the resources. It will be terrible if the issue finally boils down to the Committee recognising the problem but not willing the means to make the law stick.
I turn in the Auld Report to paragraph 204 on page 46 and my eye comes to the following line:
"Proper enforcement would be unpopular and the costs high".
Are those the criteria upon which we decide to make or to amend law—that the legislation would be unpopular or it would cost too much? If so, I am very much afraid that harsh words will be said not merely on this but on many other Bills.
This is a proper amendment. It offers the Committee another variation on Sunday opening hours. It also gives us the opportunity as we move through the variations to test the will of the Government. I have heard senior members of the Government say that proper amendments need to be tested. I accept that in good faith. I do not accept that the Government will not move an inch. We must make sure that when the Bill leaves this Committee every opportunity has been given to the Government to demonstrate that they are willing, if not to be flexible, at least to move a little bit. I shall be pleased to hear the Minister reply to this amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: To hear some noble Lords one would think that the Bill was not to permit shops to open on a Sunday if they wished but to force them to open for the whole day whether they wished to or not. It is important to remember that it is not. Secondly, in Scotland few shops are open on Sunday in spite of the fact that it has been legal for them to do so for 40 years. In most cases the reason is that it does not pay.
Lord Glenarthur: I must confess that when I saw the Marshalled List of amendments and the later addition to it I thought that we were in for a great number of Second Reading speeches. I fear, looking at the list and studying it, that this may well be the case. A great many alternatives have been put forward. I shall come back shortly to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
I should like to pick up first a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, upon which other noble Lords have commented. While the amendment at Second Reading was quoted, I do not for one minute suggest that anyone expected amendments to the Bill not to be put down. The fact is that the terms of the amendment were that.
"this House considers that the law should be amended so as to rationalise restrictions on trading hours without such extensive deregulation as the Bill proposes".
All that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has been saying is that that was soundly defeated. That is where we start.
As I understand it, the amendment appears to nullify one of the main purposes of the Bill. That purpose is to remove all restrictions on trading hours both in the week and on Sunday by allowing all shops to open for up to four hours on Sunday but allowing any further opening either in the week or on Sunday to be at the discretion of the local authorities. They would appear to be granted power to decide whether Part I or Part IV of the ShopsAct 1950 should operate in particular areas and would appear theoretically to be able to say to shopowners that they could not open at all during the week as only the four hours on Sunday have been expressly given for the purposes of opening. They could, of course, allow them to open at any other time.
I should also point out that the amendment could have the effect of introducing for the first time a general statutory prhobition on opening for more than four hours on Sunday in Scotland. That would include the petrol stations that were referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, shakes his head, but that is the effect of his amendment. One thing that we all seem agreed upon is that we should not emerge from our discussions with more regulation than we started with. That is nevertheless the effect of his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I thought that I understood the noble Lord to say that the amendment was concerned merely with the United Kingdom and certainly not with Scotland.
Lord Glenarthur: I think, first of all, that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I beg your pardon. It is for England and Wales only. It does not affect the position in Scotland at all.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord is wrong. If he studies the Bill, he will see that what he proposes will apply to Scotland. The fact is that the Bill does apply to Scotland because it is merely the existing legislation that has fallen into desuetude in Scotland. This Bill rights that by deregulating throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
This amendment is the first of several, though we have not gone into detail on them now, that give local authorities power to decide opening hours without any guidance on the principles on which they may base their decision. This was the theme deployed by my noble friend Lord Sandford when he spoke. I respect the view that local authorities are well fitted to make decisions about local areas. But, surely, they should have to do so only within an agreed and consistent framework. This amendment gives the local authority a free hand. I do not suppose for one moment that this is an area in which it would particularly welcome such a free hand.
The only general principle on opening hours that I can discern in the amendment is that some Sunday opening is possible. While welcoming that, I cannot accept the other implications of the amendment and the chaos that it would cause all over the country. I am not clear either upon what particular principle the noble Lord bases his view that some opening may be allowed. Geographical disparities would occur across local authority boundaries. A trader within one area may well lose a considerable amount of trade to another trader in a different area. In fact, this occurs already where local authorities take different views on how strictly they should enforce the Shops Act. Local authorities' views change from time to time, and political persuasion, of course, plays its part. So there would be variations from time to time. There would be nothing permanent or consistent about a local authority system of regulation except in the particular variation of the four hours on a Sunday. It would have the effect of removing all the present restrictions and leaving only that particular restriction to which I have referred.
Another point that strikes me as being particularly strange about the amendment is the difficulty of enforcement. There does not appear to be any consistency, or the likelihood in the future of any consistency, about which hours the four hours should be. Which sort of premises should be affected—newsagents and tobacconists in the morning, garden centres in the afternoon, and garages? The whole thing is thrown wide open.
I come back to what I consider the key to the whole matter. This is what was so widely discussed by Mr. Robin Auld when he considered the matter. His conclusion on page 52 was that,
"we are convinced that none of the suggestions for reform, short of complete abolition of restrictions, would work. None of them would work because they would not form the basis of a fair, simple and readily enforceable system of regulation".
I return to where I started. We talked about the amendment at Second Reading. That amendment was defeated. I believe that the present amendment on its
548
merits simply would not work. That is why I hope that your Lordships will not accept it.
Lord Jacques: Is the Minister suggesting that every country in Europe except Sweden is wise enough and able enough to make some regulations but we are not?
Lord Glenarthur: If the noble Lord wishes to look at the example of Sweden, he will find that he has picked a particularly good example; there is no regulation. The effects have been particularly good for the purposes of the small shoptrader in particular. Other parts of Europe have various forms of regulation. What we are saying, in the full light of what Mr. Auld and his committee decided, is that there is no other means short of total deregulation that would suit this country.
Lord Jacques: The Minister has got me entirely wrong. I said that there was regulation in all countries in Europe except Sweden. I am therefore ignoring Sweden. I then put a question to the Minister. Is the Minister saying that all these countries except Sweden are able to regulate Sunday trading but that we are not able to do so?
Lord Glenarthur: If the noble Lord wishes to follow the example of countries that are not as satisfactory as Sweden in this respect, that is a matter for him. What I am trying to say is perfectly fair. The fact is that Sweden has a particularly good record that others may pursue. We have examined this closely. The noble Lord can talk about other countries and give an example of how they may differ from the view that we take. The fact is that Sweden has a particularly good record of achievement in this respect. We believe that the opportunities which we can gain from deregulation—millions of people want this—are ones that we should adopt.
Lord Galpern: In the city of Glasgow the local authority already possesses powers to deal with the opening of shops. In some parts of the city shops have abandoned the weekly half-day holiday. In other parts the weekly half-day has to be observed. But there is machinery for those that are closed at the present time to apply to the local authority for permission to open.
4 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: With respect to the noble Lord, I wonder whether, in embarking now upon the employment restrictions that are in the Bill, we are widening the debate that has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd.
Lord Galpern: I am referring to the powers possessed regarding the times of opening of shops. In some sections of the city they have abandoned these and are allowed to open on a weekly half-day. In other sections the local authority prohibits the opening.
Lord Glenarthur: I am not sure that I can follow the noble Lord at this moment, about Glasgow in particular. But I stand by what I said. I believe that the noble Lord's ideas—well-meaning though they are—go rather wide of the amendment with which we are dealing.
The Earl of Lauderdale: The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said he was rather afraid that this debate might degenerate into a repetition of Second Reading speeches. Then I thought that he got on to Second Reading points himself when he referred to the Auld Report on the one hand and to what happens in Sweden on the other. Those matters were debated at the length of nearly 40 speeches—there would have been one more if I had spoken, but I withdrew—on Second Reading. But he also used an argument which I also heard, and was surprised to hear, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that because the Second Reading was a vote for total deregulation, therefore there was no merit in discussing any amendment which amounted to any degree of regulation.
Lord Glenarthur: I must say to my noble friend that I never said anything of the sort. I said that I supported the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his view that there had been a very decisive majority against the amendment which was put down at Second Reading.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I am much obliged to my noble friend because it will give me greater heart in speaking on amendments that follow. However, if it is argued that a decision on Second Reading for complete deregulation rules out all the amendments that we are proposing on the Marshalled List, what is the good of having a Committee stage? What is the good of having the procedure which enables us to vote against clause stand part? A number of us had very great reservations during the Second Reading debate. A considerable number went into the Lobby against the Second Reading, and several, including myself, will persevere with amendments in Committee.
Lord Shepherd: I only intervene to see whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would agree with me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was quite wrong when he said that amendments of this character were an abuse of parliamentary procedure. The Committee stage has been called, and the Committee will remember that the Title of the Bill has been postponed. It has been postponed for a very special reason: that amendments could be put down and in no way be limited by the Title to the Bill. I intervene only in this respect. When we had the Transport Bill in the last Session a number of noble Lords opposite took the same view as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. If this is so, that because one has a Bill that has been given a Second Reading one then is limited to the basic principles within it, inevitably one will have Divisions on Second Reading. I think one of the more sensible conventions of your Lordships' House is that Bills, whether they be Private or Government, should be given a Second Reading so that we can then freely examine them and make up our minds on Third Reading.
I hope that I have explained what I thought the House in the past, and even today, understood a Second Reading to be and what it stood for. If I am wrong, then I think we could be in increasing difficulties and much of the constructive nature of your Lordships' House will undoubtedly have been lost. I hope that never again will it be said that because
550
the House has given a Bill a Second Reading it imposes upon any Member of the House any limitations as to the amendments which he wishes the Committee to consider. At the end of the day of course it is only by leave that amendments are moved and considered. I make that intervention in the hope that we shall not hear that argument again during the period of this Bill, because we take up so much time on it.
With regard to the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I share the anxiety which has been expressed. Yes, in some ways I should like to see some limitation of Sunday trading. I certainly should like to have a public debate within the localities as to whether they wish it or not. But the amendment that is immediately before us seems to me to open this matter so wide that in one street one could have shops open in the morning, and in another in the afternoon. My anxiety about the Bill has not been what the consumers or the shopkeepers want; they have an interest. But so have those who suffer because of the environmental difficulty, I think that they should have a voice in this respect. Therefore, if there were to be limitation, then I should think it must be a limitation that affects the whole of the trading area.
Therefore, much as I support and understand the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I do not think that I can support this amendment. However, that does not preclude me from supporting other amendments which seek to bring some limitation of the general principle within the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Viscount replies to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and as he was not here, I think, when I made my original observations may I respectfully point out that they were based not on the fact that the House had given the Bill a Second Reading but on the precise terms of the amendment that was moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and decisively negatived by your Lordships.
Lord Mishcon: It is upon that point—only so that we complete one argument tidily—that I venture to address the House, again apologising to the noble and learned Lord that I was called away rather urgently at the beginning of his speech. However, I heard the purport of it and I know that he will forgive me if I make some comments on it. Because I regard it as rather important from this Front Bench, I want to deal with the argument that has been advanced. I am not speaking on the passing of the Second Reading. I am on the point that the noble and learned Lord, lord Simon, wants to emphasise; namely, the question of the amendment which was defeated. Your Lordships know already that on this side of the House—and rather proudly do I say it—there is no Whip and there will be a free vote. And I look at very independent faces opposite me and I hope that any attempt to discipline people upon a vote of this kind will, with your Lordships' usual sense of independence, be stoutly resisted.
Having said that, I want to emphasise this point from this Front Bench. There is a tradition in this House—absolutely right—that we do not oppose a Second Reading. An amendment was put by the Bishops' Bench which your Lordships carefully

551
considered. Some people called that amendment a wrecking amendment; and some of us who thought that it might be—it did not include myself but there were people who did think so—decided that it would not be proper to vote for that amendment on Second Reading because it might impinge upon the old, and the very much respected, tradition of your Lordships' House. But there were others who considered the debate and who said, "Look, there is much force in the argument of this amendment but we do not yet know what amount of deregulation and what is the nature of the deregulation that is suggested. We cannot deal with that on Second Reading and therefore we shall abstain on Second Reading, although we are in favour of the spirit of the amendment; but we must wait until the Committee stage to see what is put forward as the limitation on regulation; and we shall consider those amendments on their merits." Therefore, it is only from that point of view that I venture to intervene. It would be a sorry day in this House if the Committee stage were strangled by reason of the fact that an amendment was moved on Second Reading.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): I think that it is proper for me to reply to one of my distinguished predecessors, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he addresses a question to me. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that, owing to another engagement, I was not present when he spoke and so did not hear what he said. However, his remarks have been reported to me and I understood that he was addressing himself to the position of those who, rightly or wrongly in their judgment, voted on the amendment. To some extent it was fair for him to argue that, having done that, they have made their position in relation to this amendment more difficult. That was the argument, but I do not think that in the end that can address itself to the procedures of the House.
I am always subject to correction because I know so little, but, as I understand the position, once the House has set out on a Committee stage the House will have a Committee stage. Like everyone else in the House, I am a servant of the House, prepared to do what the majority of Members wish, and so if the House wishes to have a Committee stage, it will have a Committee stage. Having listened to a very proper argument from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I suggest that it would be right for us to do what the majority of Members of the House want to do and to get on with the Committee stage.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I think the Committee will agree that we have had a very helpful and valuable debate. Many points of view have been put forward, some in support of my idea. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, summed up my attitude towards this amendment by saying that it was a good idea. If noble Lords think that this amendment is a good idea in principle, I hope that they will vote for it if I press it to a Division.
Two noble Baronesses have spoken during this debate and have made very cogent points. I am very reluctant to go into the details of the practicalities which they have raised, but certain points could be dealt with quite simply by ordinary arrangements, by-
552
laws, or perhaps even by subsequent amendment of the schedules. Their points are not fundamental to the proposition that I put forward in this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, as president of that famous organisation of district councils, rather ridiculed the suggestion of keeping open for only four hours, because he said that it might be open only for one hour, then the shop would shut for the second hour, be open for the third hour, and so on. Surely the noble Lord has knowledge of practical matters in relation to the retail trade. That is not how people would carry on a business. The noble Lord's view is contrary to that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who so kindly alluded to me—and I thank him for it—and who pointed out that time will be taken up by people travelling to the retail shop and that once they have arrived, they will have to open up, and so forth. I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, put forward that argument when dealing with this amendment.
As I have said, we have had a long debate and I think this is an occasion for a free vote. In spite of the general weaknesses or limitations of my amendment, many people have said that it is a good idea.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I thought that he was about to sit down. As it seems that he intends to invite your Lordships to decide on this matter. Since the definition of "shop" is to include any premises where retail trade or business is carried on, perhaps I may ask him whether he thinks his amendment extends, first, to petrol stations, secondly, to public houses and, thirdly, to pharmacies. I ask because, as I said, I did not see this amendment until the noble Lord started to speak.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I ought to apologise to noble Lords for the late arrival of my amendments. I was not aware of the final time for submitting amendments to be printed in the Marshalled List. I brought these amendments up early on Friday morning, expecting that they would be printed in the Marshalled List, but I am afraid that they were too late and, therefore, I apologise for their late arrival.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has asked me a technical question about the definition of "shop". My amendment simply does what the Government want to do with shops and places where retail trade is carried on, but it limits trading to four hours as opposed to having free trading all day. Therefore, the position of petrol stations and public houses, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, is totally unaffected. I assume that the Government will not say that public houses will be open all hours of the day and night.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It must be my fault that I have not made myself clear. The question is not whether public houses shall be open all day; that is controlled independently by the licensing laws. The question is whether public houses, coming under the definition of "shop", will be closed for all except four hours in a day. The same applies to petrol stations and pharmacies.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very grateful indeed for the help which the noble and learned Lord is giving me in this discussion. Perhaps I may reply positively to him. I am not saying anything about public houses or petrol stations. I am taking the words of the Bill dealing with shops and places of business where retail trade is being carried on. Therefore, the position of petrol stations and public houses is as it always has been, or at least as it is at present.
I almost said that I was in some kind of spiritual difficulty, because when I was speaking I was looking very attentively at the array of right reverend Prelates facing me and occasionally I saw one or two of them nodding. I am sure that they were nodding in favour of what I was saying at the time. However, none of them has spoken and, therefore, at this stage I ask your Lordships' indulgence to quote from a letter which I received from my friend the Rev. Bernard Thorogood, who is the general secretary and clerk of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church. In his letter he says that the Council of Churches and many of the Churches are very much in favour of having a limited number of hours of free trading. He says:
"the amendment which appears to me to have the greatest general support is one which limits the number of hours a shop may open on Sunday. This would mean that smaller local businesses would find it worthwhile, but larger city shopping centres would not find it profitable and so we would avoid the large-scale congestion, the major employment of staff and the provision of all public services".
The kind of amendment which appeals to Mr. Thorogood is one which limits trading establishments which open on Sundays to no more than four hours on any Sunday. I think that it is time to test the opinion of the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Viscount Davidson: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security White Paper
4.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on the Social Security White Paper which I am publishing today.
"In June the Government published a Green Paper which set out in detail the case for change, the Government's objectives for social security and our proposals for achieving them. That Green Paper marked a further stage in the process of review and public consultation which began two years ago in the autumn of 1983. The Government have four main aims.
"We want to see a simpler system of social security which provides a better service to the
554
public. By common consent social security at present is too complex. There are some 30 benefits each with separate and frequently conflicting rules of entitlement, and supplementary benefit alone requires almost 40,000 staff to administer it.
"We want to see more people looking forward to greater independence in retirement. Only half the work-force currently have occupational pensions of their own. Our plans extend not only to occupational pensions but also for the first time provide a new right to personal pensions.
"We want a system which is financially secure. As the Government Actuary's report published with the White Paper demonstrates, the future cost of the state earnings related pension scheme will grow substantially—at the same time as the ratio of contributors to pensioners worsens. The Government believe that this problem must be tackled now.
"Above all we want to see more effective help going to those who most need it. More than half of those living on the lowest incomes today are in families with children. This includes both families where the parents are unemployed and also low income working families. Added to this people can still find themselves with less income in work than if they were unemployed. Others can find that a pay rise in work can actually make them worse off. The Government believe that urgent action is necessary to tackle these problems.
"Mr. Speaker, one of the major priorities of the Government's proposals is to make better provision for low income working families with children. Accordingly, we propose to abolish the present family income supplement and introduce a new benefit, family credit.
"Family credit is designed to ensure that families with children will be better off in work. It will be based on take-home or net pay—rather than gross earnings as with family income supplement—so that the worst effects of the poverty trap are eliminated.
"We expect that compared with family income supplement, family credit will give help to an extra 200,000 families. In other words, twice as many low income families with children will benefit from the new scheme. Family credit will be paid through the pay-packet, but it should be emphasised that child benefit will be paid in addition and that that payment will go as now direct to the mothers.
"We also intend to bring extra support to families who are not in work. This will be achieved through the new income support scheme. A family premium—a special higher level of benefit—will be paid on top of the basic income support rate and on top of the rates for individual children. One of the groups who will most gain from this change will be unemployed families with children.
"The income support scheme will replace supplementary benefit. The regular extra payments now made on the basis of detailed individual assessment will be absorbed into the main rates of benefit. As well as a premium for families with children, there will be an additional premium for lone parents and premiums for pensioners and the long-term sick and disabled. At the same time the

555
capital rule, which at present is an inflexible £3,000 cut-off, will be substantially eased; and we will also ease the earnings rules for lone parents, disabled people and long-term unemployed families.
"While the broad pattern of income support will remain as set out in the Green Paper, we have modified our proposals in the light of consultations in two significant ways.
"First, the income support rate will still be based on age divisions at 18 and 25 for single people. However, in order to help young families with children in particular, we now intend to have the same rate for all couples over 18.
"Second, we intend to increase the help for families with more than one disabled child. The Green Paper proposed a double family premium where there was one or more disabled child. We have now decided to pay the extra premium for each disabled child in a household.
"This last change will reinforce the special attention which we give to disabled people in our proposals. They will benefit from the premium in income support and from a higher earnings disregard. Overall, disabled people on low incomes will benefit significantly from these proposals.
"However well designed the income support scheme may be, it cannot anticipate every special or emergency need. These needs will be dealt with by the social fund.
"Instead of the present small universal maternity and death grants—which have both remained at the same value for over 15 years—proper help will be available from the fund to all low income families, not just those on supplementary benefit. The grant for funeral expenses will ensure that the full cost of the funeral can be met and it is planned that the maternity grant should be set at about £75. Grants will also be given for community care purposes, for example to help someone leaving a long-stay hospital. In addition, the fund will provide loans to help claimants cope with items other than normal weekly needs.
"The main structure of our housing benefit proposals has been acknowledged as an important simplification of the scheme. Treating employed and unemployed people alike, and so getting rid of two separate systems in housing benefit, has been particularly welcomed.
"We shall go ahead with this but I intend, in response to consultations, to make two significant changes to the Green Paper proposals. First, I recognise the anxieties expressed about the effect of a single taper for rent and rates on owner-occupiers, particularly pensioners. I also recognise the concern of local authorities that a single taper would create administrative difficulties for them. We shall therefore keep separate tapers for rent and rates. This will still be a substantial simplification compared with the six tapers in the present system.
"Second, although the general power to run local housing benefit schemes will be ended, local authorities will retain their power to grant extra benefit to individual claimants in exceptional circumstances. I have also decided that they should
556
retain their power to give special treatment to war pensioners.
"As we made clear in the Green Paper, we believe that the basis on which help is provided with rates needs to be changed. At present around 7 million householders receive help with some or all of their rates bill and up to 3 million householders pay no rates at all. We stand by the principle that everyone should make a contribution towards the cost of their local services. The White Paper therefore reaffirms the proposals that everyone should pay at least 20 per cent. of their rates, but the proposals which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be bringing forward shortly on the reform of local taxation may affect the way this contribution is made.
"The Government will be carrying forward the proposals for directing widows' benefits to those who need them most and for making maternity allowance more flexible and more closely related to recent work. The new lump sum payment of £1,000 to widows will be tax-free and will be ignored when considering help with funeral expenses. The White Paper also proposes that maternity allowance, like statutory sick pay, should be paid through employers, and a consultation document will be published shortly.
"On timing, we will move to the first April uprating in 1987 and at that time we will introduce other changes like statutory maternity allowance and the new system of help with maternity and funeral costs. The main structural changes to income-related benefits and the other elements of the social fund will be introduced in April 1988. This recognises the arguments of employers and local authorities that the timetable must allow them to make proper preparations.
"As far as income-related benefits are concerned, a technical annex is published with the White Paper. The figures show the possible distributional effects of the changes but these can be no more than illustrative. The actual position at the time of change will depend among other things on the exact benefit rates decided for April 1988; and the illustrative figures take no account of any changes resulting from the reform of rates.
"As far as pensions policy is concerned, the Government Actuary's report published with the White Paper shows that if no action is taken, total pension costs will increase from under £15½ billion to nearly £49 billion provided that the basic pension is uprated by prices. If, as some urge, the basic pension is uprated in line with earnings then the total pension cost increases to nearly £73 billion which would require a national insurance contribution of 27½4 per cent. The cost of SERPS alone will increase from barely £200 million today to £25½ billion.
"The Government cannot ignore this vast pensions bill which is being handed down to our children. In the consultation a number of important organisations recognised this case but argued that rather than totally replacing SERPS the costs could be reduced by modifying its provisions.

557
"In testing whether a policy of modifying SERPS would be acceptable, the Government have two major objectives. First, we want to see the future cost of SERPS substantially reduced. Second, and even more fundamental, we want to see many more people in this country with their own pension. It is on the basis that both of these objectives can be achieved that the Government are prepared to change the proposals from those put forward in the Green Paper.
"The Government propose to modify the scheme so that costs in the next century can be afforded. As with the Green Paper proposals, the Government recognise the particular needs of those nearest retirement. The SERPS changes will not affect anyone retiring this century, nor anyone widowed this century. There will also be a transitional period as the new scheme comes into effect fully in 2010. The basic pension is entirely unaffected by these proposals and we will continue fully to protect its value.
"The changes to SERPS are that: occupational schemes contracted out of the state scheme should be responsible for inflation-proofing guaranteed minimum pensions in payment up to 3 per cent. a year: SERPS pensions should be based on a lifetime's earnings, not on the best 20 years as now. Special protection will be built in for women who have breaks in work to bring up families and for those who become disabled and people looking after them; SERPS pensions should be calculated on 20 per cent. of earnings rather than 25 per cent; widows and widowers over 65 should be allowed to inherit half their spouse's SERPS rights, rather than the full amount as now.
"However, policy on SERPS is only one part of the Government's pensions strategy. Our central aim is to provide many more people in this country with their own pension. The White Paper puts forward a six-point plan to achieve this.
"First, a special incentive will be given to encourage the setting up of new occupational pension schemes. This will consist of a reduction, or rebate, on national insurance contributions. An extra 2 per cent. rebate will be added to the existing rebate making a total incentive of almost 8 per cent. This special rebate will last for five years.
"Second, for the first time, every employee will be able to take a personal pension whether or not his employer runs an occupational scheme. The holder of a personal pension will also receive the special national insurance incentive and his contributions will qualify for tax relief.
"Third, for the first time, employers will be able to contract out of the state scheme by guaranteeing a level of contribution to an occupational scheme—rather than accept the unlimited liability of promising a 'final-salary' pension. These new arrangements will also open the way for more industrywide schemes.
"Fourth, building societies, banks and unit trusts will be able to provide personal pension savings schemes as well as group schemes.
558
Fifth, all members of occupational pension schemes will in future have the right to pay additional voluntary contributions in order to boost their income in retirement.
"Sixth, people with personal pensions will be fully covered by the new investor protection arrangements to be made for all financial services.
"These changes build on top of the reforms introduced by the 1985 Social Security Act which protect the rights of early leavers. The White Paper proposes that this protection will be extended to all members of schemes leaving after two years rather than five years as now. And anyone changing jobs will be able to transfer all his rights into a personal pension.
"Mr. Speaker, the effect of the White Paper proposals will be to direct substantially more help to low income families with children and to provide more help for disabled people on low incomes. We will take new steps to increase the spread of occupational pensions and give everyone the right to have a personal pension. We will provide a simpler and more effective benefit structure and have now embarked on the biggest computer project of its kind in Western Europe.
"Following this White Paper, the Government will introduce comprehensive legislation early in the new year. The aim will be to achieve a modern social security system directing help where that help is needed".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her most unwelcome Statement which it has taken 18 minutes to deliver. I want to say that I am glad that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is here and that I think—I speak in a non-party way—that this is an abuse of the procedure of the House. When I first came here five years ago I was given to understand that when Statements were made they were to be the subject of only brief comment and questions from the Opposition on both Benches and they were not to be Second Reading speeches which initiated a debate. I fear that what we have had from the noble Baroness—and I know that it was not her fault—is a Second Reading speech on the White Paper.
It is objectionable, I think, to any sensible Member of your Lordships' House to have a Second Reading speech on a White Paper which none of us has seen. I think that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House should take on board this extraordinary procedure whereby a White Paper can be published and is available to the press and then I get a Statement, which is roughly a summary of it, in your Lordships' House where 99 per cent. of your Lordships have not seen it. I do not know what intelligent comment or question any of us can ask.
My protest is not personal because, as a life member of the National Union of Journalists, I can get anything; I could have got that yesterday; I could have got it this morning. But when my office rings up the Minister's office I am told, as a Member of your Lordships' House, that I cannot have it until after the Statement has been made. With a little protest here

559
and there I got it just a little while ago, and the only time I have had to read it occurred because some of your Lordhips were so loquacious about the Shops Bill that I was sitting here with nothing else to do but to read the White Paper. Had your Lordships been a little brisker about dealing with the amendments to the Shops Bill, I should not have had time to read it at all.
I do most sincerely say, in a non-party way, that this is not how we should conduct the business of the House. We were put in a very difficult situation today. We should not have Statements of 18 minutes duration on a White Paper which the majority of Members have not had an opportunity of reading. Having said that, of couse, I must now discipline myself. Unlike the noble Baroness, who is subject to other disciplines, I will try to limit myself to a few questions, because I am hoping that the Leader of the House will make sure that adequate opportunity is given for debate as early as possible on this White Paper. I should like to ask the Leader of the House when we may be able to have a full debate on this important question.
I will try to be as brief as possible over the other questions I want to put. In view of the staff difficulties in the DHSS at present, I should like to know what provision is being made either for an increase in staff or for fewer staff in order to carry out the proposals. I have informed the Minister on another occasion that the Tavistock Square branch of her department is closing at 11 o'clock in the morning because they are so over-burdened. I think it is very important for us to know what arrangements are being made in regard to staff.
I have to ask the noble Baroness the Minister—and if she cannot answer now perhaps she will do so on a future occasion—why the invalid care allowance is apparently not being extended to married women, even though a case is before the EC court in Strasbourg. Also, many women want to know why the family income supplement is apparently paid to fathers, even though they may not be living with or supporting their families. Many women feel that the only way to make sure that this money goes to the children is to ensure that it goes not into the father's wage packet but into the mother's purse at the post office.
On the Social Fund, I should like to ask why there is no appeal. Apparently people are to apply for the help, as the noble Baroness the Minister has read out; but if they are refused they are to have no right of appeal. Moreover, their rights are not set out, so it can be just a matter of an individual's decision as to whether any help is given or not.
Then we have this question of 20 per cent. of rates which have to be paid by all people. I know the Minister has said that rates are being looked at again. I should have thought that the Government might have got their rates reform sorted out in the beginning before this imposte was levied on the poorest people. We are left with a feeling that this is basically a cost-cutting exercise: the Government want to take from the poor to give to the poorer, while the rich are still to prosper.
I very much regret that this White Paper comes before we even get the Green Paper on personal
560
taxation. The Government seem to ignore the interdependence of taxation and benefits; and until we link these two aspects of fiscal policy together we are not going to get any sense into the whole plan. So far as SERPS is concerned, we are glad that there has been some amelioration, but of course we shall want to debate the details later because it seems from the Statement today that the people who are going to suffer from these changes are mainly women, and particularly widows. That does not seem to be fair at all.
I very much hope that before long we shall be able to go into these matters in more detail. I appeal to the Leader of the House to see that we are not put into this position again where we get a long Statement which is really a Second Reading speech, and then there is little time to look at the papers. That applies to all my noble friends. I, of course, have had some fore sight of the papers; but that is not good enough and it is not the way this House should be treated.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating this lengthy but important Statement. As we have heard, the Statement is accompanied by a White Paper but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said, we have not yet had time for consideration of that White Paper. We shall certainly want to consider it very carefully, and I hope that when we come to do so we shall find that the figures we need are contained in it. We did not find them in the Green Paper, and if they are not in the White Paper either certainly we shall be moved to protest. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, we look forward to an early debate on the White Paper, well in advance of legislation.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the proposals contained in the White Paper are being submitted to the Social Security Advisory Committee, and, if so, what the time-scale for that is. We shall want to consider the overall impact of the proposals. I should like to ask whether a greater or a lesser amount will be spent in future on social security than would be the case if these proposals where not implemented, and by how much the figure will be higher or lower. Can the noble Baroness say how many losers there will be and how many gainers, and who in fact they are?
So far as pensions are concerned, we very much regret that there is to be no increase in the basic pension. When we saw the Green Paper we said that we could not agree to the abolition of SERPS without a substantial increase in the basic, and that we would certainly find it very difficult to agree to the curtailment of SERPS without a substantial increase in the basic. After all, the removal of the "best 20 years" rule takes away from SERPS one of the principal arguments in its favour. We shall look most carefully and with great interest at the inducements which are proposed for pension schemes and at the proposals for personal pensions. So far as I can see, they conform to the minimum proposals contained in the Government's consultative document on personal pensions, and perhaps the noble Baroness would confirm that that is so.

561
Turning for a moment to family benefit, I would ask if it is the Government's intention to allow child benefit to be a declining proportion of that. Do they intend to allow the real value of child benefit to decline, as has in fact happened this year? With regard to family credit, I very much regret that the payment is to be made through the pay-packet and not through the mother.
Can the noble Baroness tell us what rate of national insurance contribution is now proposed to replace the 16.5 per cent. plus 4 per cent. to a private scheme which was put forward in the Green Paper? I regret the retention of the contribution of 20 per cent. of the rates. I conclude by asking two further questions. Is it correct that the number of families suffering from marginal tax rates over 80 per cent. will be doubled? Finally, are the suggestions correct that the Bill, when it comes, will be largely enabling and that most of the changes will be effected by means of orders? Because if that were the case we should feel obliged to object most strongly.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, despite the fact that noble Lords seemed to have had very little time, they still managed to ask me a great number of questions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, through the usual channels there will obviously be time for her to ask for further debate. But it must be through the usual channels. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said that the Statement was too long. I would remind her that social security reform is a very important subject which deserves a fair and full Statement. I doubt very much whether the information necessary could have been got into less. Secondly, the noble Baroness could not have got the White Paper yesterday. It was not available to any lobby journalists yesterday.
She asked me a great number of questions. With regard to family credit, this is a major element in the new approach to helping working families on low incomes. Its links with employment need to be clearly visible. This is best done by paying it as part of take-home pay and showing it on the wage slip. Many people have argued that the tax and social security system should be more closely integrated. Payment through the pay packet is integral to such an approach. Indeed, if this step towards closer alignment is regarded as unacceptable, it is hard to see how we can ever move the systems more closely together. Most two-parent working families rely on one partner's wage packet and accept responsibility for deciding how it is to be used. This will still be the case when the take-home pay also includes family credit.
The benefits for non-working families—for instance, supplementary benefit—normally go to the husband and it is therefore reasonable to treat family credit families on the same basis, rather than expect the state to direct resources between family members. In fact, many of those receiving family credit will be lone parents where this sort of question will not arise. Even in some two-parent families, the recipient may be the mother, because she is working more than 24 hours; and of course all mothers will continue to get child benefit direct.
562
The provision in SERPS which allows widows and older widowers to inherit all of their partner's additional pension rights up to a ceiling of the maximum SERPS pension payable is widely recognised to be too generous and out of line with the provision for widows and widowers in employers' pension schemes. Such provisions are also expensive and give help indiscriminately. We believe that the changes are fully justified. They will not in any case affect anyone widowed this century, but will give those people who want a chance to build up alternative provisions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about appeal rights for the social fund. We have examined with care the points made in the consultation period, but we do not see how the traditional formal adjudication system that we have elsewhere in the benefit system fits with the approach of the social fund in handling special needs; for example, in relation to advances of money to claimants which are then recovered from their future benefit. The issues for decision imply local and informal decisions. Reviews will be handled in the same way.
I think that the noble Baroness also asked me what would happen when the budget of the social fund runs out. Did she?
Baroness Jeger: I do not think so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness can have the answer, anyway. I will reply to her, because I am quite anxious to get that point on the record. We shall be aiming for flexibility in the operation of the budget so that local offices do not run out of money mid-year. However, it must be said that the idea of a budget is not new. Most organisations have to plan their spending over the whole financial year.
The noble Baroness also said that this is a cost-cutting exercise. The Government have all along made clear that the review was set up not as a cost-cutting exercise but to achieve better targeting of social security expenditure. In this context it is clear, as it was when the Green Paper was published, that there is scope for substantial economies in housing benefits, and the White Paper confirms that we expect to save about £450 million here.
On the other hand, on the basis of the illustrative figures now published, the cost of the new family credit will be about twice that of FIS, while the income support scheme will cost a little more than the supplementary benefit weekly scale rates and additional requirements. These figures are consistent with the provisional expenditure figures in the autumn statement which will be confirmed in the public expenditure White Paper. In the longer term the emerging costs of SERPS will be significantly reduced by the modifications now proposed. On the question of extra posts for staff, we are still considering how best the increased work during the transitional period can be coped with. However, it is clear that temporary, although substantial, increases in staff will be needed to bring in the new schemes effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked for figures in the White Paper. Perhaps he will look in the technical

563
annex which shows the increases and decreases and turn to Table 6A on the timescale. Legislation will be very early in the new year and it will be a matter for Parliament rather than for the Social Security Advisory Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also asked why should we not increase the basic pension. Our pledge to retain the real value of the basic pension stands, and we have done considerably better than that with our 5 per cent. real increase since we came to office. Basic pension will remain at the heart of state provision and, as we said in the Green Paper, if economic growth permits, future governments will be able to give all pensioners a share of increasing prosperity through the basic pension.
The overall effect of the changes—which was the subject of a further question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Banks—will mean getting a radically improved social security structure which is bound to mean increases and decreases in the amount of benefit that people get. We could avoid this in one of two ways: we could build a new structure on top of the old and face a huge increase in the already massive spending on social security; or we could do nothing to tackle the serious problems in the system. We have chosen the responsible course—action, but without imposing crippling demands on public spending.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, may I, despite the protests that have been made, express my gratitude to my noble friend for undertaking the physical endurance of reading this long and immensely important Statement. Listening to it, it seems to me that it is probably one of the most important Government Statements that has been made for many years and, if my noble friend will allow me to say so, it was absolutely right that it should be repeated in full to this House, because it would have been derogatory to the standing of the House had that not been done. Perhaps I may also support what was said by the noble Baroness opposite—that a debate on the White Paper is essential. May I, as my noble friend the Leader of the House is present, suggest that it be a two-day debate? It would be a pity if these complex matters were crowded into one day, with the House sitting late and the time for speeches restricted.
I have only one point to make on the merits. I should like to say to my noble friend how glad I am—and I think many people will be—that according to the Statement the treatment of SERPS now follows very much the line which was advocated from both sides of this House in our recent debate.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, as someone who takes an interest in social security affairs, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on repeating the Statement which was made in another place, given the length of it. I should like to say, too, that, unlike my noble friend Lady Jeger, because I am also interested in the Shops Bill I did not even have a chance to read the White Paper during the debate on the first amendment on the Bill. So I had to rely to a large extent on scribbling notes as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was speaking.
I should like to agree with the noble Baroness that the system needs changing, that it is complex and that
564
it is too bureaucratic. If there is anything more complex than the system it is the Statement we have heard this afternoon and some of the prepared replies to the questions which followed it. They did not simplify matters much—certainly not for me—and so I should like to ask the noble Baroness one or two questions.
The Statement, like the Green Papers which preceded it, is devoid of figures and devoid of any kind of statistics at all. The noble Baroness said at one point that the £3,000 cut-off would be substantially eased. How much is "substantially"? What does "substantially eased" mean? Many people would be interested to know, because we have argued long enough for the increase from £2,400 up to £3,000. We want to know what is a substantial increase on £3,000. The noble Baroness also mentioned the earnings rule. That is something about which we have been very vigilant ever since its abolition, certainly for pensioners, was included in the Conservative Party manifesto in 1979. Can she give us more information about the earnings rule as mentioned in the Statement this afternoon?
I, too, should certainly like to welcome the proposal about disabled children and the application to more than one disabled child in the same family. But I should like some figures. How does that compare with the present position? Will it improve the position or will it maintain the position? It is difficult to know what will happen until we have some statistics.
We welcome any increase in maternity benefit but this increase is not in line with the inflation that has taken place since the benefit was first increased. This is one of the few figures that is mentioned.
On the death grant, as one who participated in that long-drawn-out campaign to maintain and to improve the death grant, I notice that the noble Baroness does not give any figures. She says that the death grant will be maintained for those on low pay or for people who need it and that a full funeral can be given. Where I come from, funeral costs run between £700 and £800 for the most meagre funeral. Is she saying that there will be an across-the-board increase to that amount? I did not hear the noble Baroness say that but what does she mean by the increase in the death grant?
The noble Baroness mentioned the 20 per cent. contribution to the rates that will be imposed on everyone. My noble friend Lady Jeger said that that could cause a lot of hardship unless there are other mitigating benefits. Can the noble Baroness say something about that? I did not hear too many details on family credit but previous attempts to amalgamate benefits have been disastrous. I have awful memories of the housing benefit scheme and the chaos which followed the combination of benefits into that scheme. In fact, it still does not operate properly even now after years of attempts. Have we any assurance that the family credit will be given a little more consideration than the housing benefit scheme was given previously?
I could go on and ask another 10 or 12 questions because the Statement took nearly 20 minutes to read. The White Paper will probably be even longer. It will contain just as little information. The only chance we have of getting some information is by asking questions on the Statement this afternoon. My memory tells me that more than 8 million benefit

565
claimants plus somewhere near 1 million MSC workers now rely almost totally on the social security net for their meagre existence. I therefore say that any attempts to worsen the situation of those people must be very carefully considered. It is the first time I have ever agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has just spoken but I agree that we should have at least a two-day debate and that it should be an early debate so that we can give this subject the attention it deserves.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his supportive remarks. It is not for me to comment on any possible debate, and he will well understand that. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, gave a Second Reading speech; I cannot actually work out how many minutes he spoke for but I would commend his attention to the technical annex for figures. No doubt he will find some rewarding facts there.
The noble Lord asked about "substantially easing". The capital cut-off of £3,000 is to be increased to £6,000. With regard to the earnings rule, there are several changes including £15 a week for disabled people and £15 a week for long-term unemployed couples. He will know that at present it is only £4 a week plus work expenses. On the question of funerals, for low income families the cost of their funerals will be paid. As a little extra tit-bit for the noble Lord, the cost will not be deducted from the £1,000 widows' benefit.
Perhaps I may suggest that we now call this a day and reserve further discussion for a future debate of some kind.

Westland plc: Shareholding
5.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement regarding Westland plc being given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"For some months now Westland plc has been in serious financial difficulties and has been seeking an association with an external partner or partners. Negotiations with United Technologies commenced in September 1985 and led to a proposal from Fiat and United Technologies.
"At the suggestion of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the Government agreed that my right honourable friend should explore the possibility of an alternative association with Aerospatiale, MBB and Agusta becoming available to Westland. An initial proposal emerged and while it was being produced, the national armaments directors of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy made a recommendation that certain helicopter requirements should in future be met solely from aircraft designed and built in Europe. For the United Kingdom this
566
recommendation represented a substantial extension to the Government's policy agreed with our European allies in 1978 and of our general approach to defence procurement as set out in the 1985 Statement on the Defence Estimates The existence of the national armaments director's recommendation was regarded by Westland as a major obstacle to the United Technologies-Fiat option which they at all times preferred. In view of the urgent necessity for a deal to be concluded quickly the Government decided that from 13th December they would not be bound by the national armaments directors' recommendation unless Westland had by then received a firm offer from the three European companies which the board would recommend to it shareholders. The Government's intention was to give time for the completion of a firm offer by the European companies to Westland, but to remove any politically imposed obstacle facing Westland if such an offer were not made in time or was unacceptable to Westland.
"At the end of last week British Aerospace announced that they were prepared to provide a quarter of the funds offered by the European consortium. Also the Governments of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy agreed, but on an entirely provisional basis, that if the European offer was accepted, they would meet their requirements in each of the three main helicopter classes by a single collaborative solution.
"Westland plc announced on Friday evening that agreement had been reached in principle whereby United Technologies and Fiat will between them take a minority shareholding in Westland. The view of the board of Westland was that the European offer which was finally received was neither firm enough nor attractive enough for them to be able to recommend it to their shareholders. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government are not bound by the national armaments directors' recommendation. Full details of the United Technologies-Fiat agreement and of a capital reorganisation of Westland will be announced by the company shortly. As part of the proposed arrangements, Westland will take a licence from the Sikorsky division of United Technologies to manufacture develop and sell the Backhawk helicopter.
"United Technologies were at all times fully aware that there was currently no Ministry of Defence requirement and no provision in the defence budget to buy the Blackhawk helicopter or any other comparable helicopter.
"Westland have welcomed the agreement as a private sector solution to their present financial difficulties that offers firm prospects of long-term viability and continues the close co-operation between Westland and Sikorsky that has existed for several decades and led to the production under licence of the successful Wessex, Whirlwind and Sea King helicopters.
"Westland intend to continue with the Anglo-Italian EH.101 programme and to continue to take part in feasibility studies on a developed version of the A.129 and on the NH.90. United Technologies have assured Westland that they will continue to

567
maintain a helicopter design and development capability in the United Kingdom.
"The Government have ensured that Westland had an alternative European-based offer to consider. But as a private sector company it is for Westland to decide the best route to follow in order to secure its future and that of its employees."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement that has been made in another place. This has been a rather unsatisfactory weekend, or four or five days, for the Government. On the one hand, we have one Cabinet Minister busily briefing the press in one direction. On the other hand, we have another Cabinet Minister making private phone calls to journalists, giving another picture. That seems to be an extraordinary situation to occur.
Indeed, my Lords, it culminated in a statement made today in the Financial Times by the managing director of Westland, in the following terms. Sir John, the chairman of the Westland company, condemned the interventionist attitude of Mr. Heseltine, which was "worse than any Labour Minister" and "astonishing and distasteful". That is an almost unprecedented situation with which to be confronted.
It is well known that the Westland company has been in difficulties for some time. It is not a nationalised corporation but is a private, limited liability company operating with all the enthusiasm, energy and drive that is characteristic of private enterprise. Nevertheless, it has got into difficulties. The first question I have to ask the noble Lord the Minister is this: at any time over the past three months have any approaches been made to the Government by Westland for financial assistance? It is not entirely unknown for private concerns to make applications to governments for assistance. For example, in the case of Johnson Matthey Bankers they did not even need to make an application because a loan was granted by the Bank of England, which then told the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it afterwards.
We are entitled to know whether any approaches were made to the Government through one of their ministries. I do not mind which ministry; it could be the Department of Trade and Industry, or the Ministry of Defence. If such an approach was made, what was the response?
What is the urgency about this whole business? Why are we suddenly presented with a situation in which time becomes of such enormous significance? We learn from the Government's Statement that:
"The existence of the national armaments directors' recommendation was regarded by Westland as a major obstacle to the United Technologies-Fiat option, which they at all times preferred".
Then the Government say in their Statement:
"In view of the urgent necessity for a deal to be concluded quickly the Government decided that from 13th December they would not be bound by the national armaments directors' recommendation unless Westland had by then received a firm offer".
We are dealing here with a company employing some 11,000 or so people who have played some part—and who by all accounts have a large potential role to play—in connection with national defence. Why the hurry?
568
I am given to understand that unless something is done by 18th December—and it is very peculiar how these dates always coincide with a recess—a receiver will be put into the company; hence the sense of urgency. As a commercial professional practitioner myself, I know perfectly well, as will those of your Lordships who have any experience of this subject, that bridging loans can always be made if there is a reasonable prospect of any kind of reasonable financial deal being concluded.
Not only have I had the privilege of listening to the noble Lord repeating the Statement, but I have also received today a background briefing that was very courteously forwarded to me by Westland. It states:
"There are no financial advantages in the Aerospatiale, MBB and Agusta proposal compared with that of United Technologies and Fiat".
That would imply that in financial terms the offer made to Westland by the European consortium is just as favourable as the other proposal. Why should the Government decide to disinterest themselves in this matter? We know perfectly well of course that the right honourable lady the Prime Minister is well addicted—always leaving Johnson Matthey Bankers in brackets—to leaving private enterprise to solve its own problems, because there is to be no assistance for lame ducks. On the other hand, we have the Minister of Defence—and this matter has defence implications—deciding to take the opposite view.
The shareholders, being the owners of the company, surely have some interests in the matter, and indeed the Westland directors advance their views and priority to those of anybody else. If the Westland directors are to be able to decide, surely they should be presented not merely with the UT and Sikorsky proposals but also in detail with the proposals that have been put forward by the European consortium. Then they can judge and the public can judge. That is surely the fairest way to go about it.
We believe not only that there is the shareholders' interest involved but also that there are questions of national security to be considered. Then there is the national interest and the interest of the employees. All those matters should be taken into account. In those circumstances I sincerely hope that the Government will see fit to take steps to ensure that both cases are fully deployed so that shareholders, Parliament and the public can make a decision on the matter.
As we have the noble Viscount the Leader of the House here with us now he may care to take a look at Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, in the light of the most alarming disclosures of possibly official information concerning national security which have been made over the weekend in the discussion of these problems—quite openly, rather than in the privacy of the Cabinet.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I echo the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am not going to attack the decision which has been made by the Government on this matter. Clearly, whatever had to be done to save this firm had to be done. I submit that nobody outside the firm or the Government is in a position to know enough to be sure whether or not the right decision was made.

569
Having said that, I share much of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about the way things happened and the timing in which they happened. The Statement says that the negotiations with United Technologies—that is, on the American bid—began only in September 1985. That is only three months ago. The Statement also says that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, at the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Defence, opened discussions with the European-only consortium. My first question is this: when did that happen? Were these discussions going on before discussions were opened with the UT-Fiat bid, or did they begin afterwards?
A more important question is this: why was it all left so late? It is about a year since I began to understand that Westland was said to be heading for the rocks, and I am not especially well-informed on these matters. What has been happening during all that time? Did the Government really leave everything to the last minute? I think one may regret that what I regard as a brave attempt by the Secretary of State for Defence did not come off. It was a brave attempt to produce a European solution.
We on these Benches, as the whole House and the country know, attach the greatest importance to the foundation and the growing up of a unified European defence industry and, indeed, a unified European high-tech industry altogether. Every time an opportunity of fostering that build-up is missed, like this one, it is a matter to be regretted. I submit that it is also a matter to be investigated very fully, not in the spirit of placing any blame for what happened, but in order to avoid it happening in the future. Can the Government assure the House that they will examine the history of this affair in order to make sure that they are well-prepared to reach a European solution if it ever happens in the future to another company?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for their reception of the Statement which I have just repeated. I do not want to enter into debate with the noble Lord opposite on the points he made in his statement, but he asked a number of specific questions. He asked, first, whether the company had discussed this matter with the Government. I can tell the noble Lord that discussions between Westland plc and the Government are on a continuing basis. We were aware, and have been aware for some time, of the difficulties facing the company. That the company has decided the matter is of some urgency—this relates to the noble Lord's second question—is entirely something for the commercial judgment of the company.
In regard to the European question put by the noble Lord and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, the Europeans first came to Westland on 2nd December with a suggested solution to the problems which Westland had made abundantly clear were facing them. However, it is for a private sector company to seek solutions to its problems in the best way that its board, the company and, indeed, ultimately the shareholders, seek. It is not, of course, for the Government to interfere in that.
570
The noble Lord's fourth question concerned the date of 18th December and parliamentary timetables. All that I can assure the noble Lord about is that private sector companies do not regulate their commercial affairs in accordance with the parliamentary timetable. It is not for me to say what should be produced before the shareholders of that company, whether it be by United Technologies-Fiat or by a European consortium. It is entirely for those companies to present before the shareholders of Westland plc what information they so wish.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked three questions. I think I have dealt with the first in saying that United Technologies, through its subsidiary company, Sikorsky, has been discussing with Westland plc the solution which we have now heard. Discussions started in September 1985. Your Lordships will recall that Sikorsky and Westland plc have had business and commercial relationships for approaching 40 years. I have dealt with the European discussions in answering the noble Lord opposite.
As regards timing, again I can only say that it is a commercial decision by the boards of private sector companies on entering discussions or negotiations with other companies, as to when they make announcements. Certainly it would not be for the Government to dictate that in any shape or form.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that there has been some association between Westland and Sikorsky previously, is it not a fact beyond all dispute that Westland's best customer is the Ministry of Defence and that therefore the general public as well as parliamentarians in both Houses have a right to know precisely what is going on?
I emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, that there are two proposals. As the Minister has already said, it is up to the shareholders whether they wish for any further information and that it should come from Westland, or whoever it is. But that is not the point. If the Government are fully informed on the European proposition and on the American proposition, surely the general public, and indeed the shareholders of Westland, are entitled to know what are those propositions.
Finally, we have always understood, I think, on both sides of the House, that it is the present Government's policy to strengthen, wherever possible, the European defence industry. Is that still the policy, or is this the first shred of possible abandonment of that policy?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for his three questions. In answer to the first question, both Westland and Sikorsky believe that there is a substantial market for the Blackhawk helicopter, both in Europe and in many other parts of the world. As regards procurement by the Ministry of Defence, the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot answer for that Ministry's future procurement programmes. I should think it would obviously be in the best interests of the Ministry of Defence to procure where the product is the most efficient and the most economic in all the circumstances.

571
As regards the two propositions, I do not believe that it is necessarily the duty of the company to make the general public aware of the commercial offers that are made to it. It is for the board of directors of a company to acquaint its shareholders of all matters pertaining to the running of the company, and I would expect it so to do. As regards our relationships with Europe, there is no change in the Government's stance from the Statement of Understanding that was made in 1978.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to say that this is a private matter. Would be confirm, however, that the Government have in fact been heavily involved in proceedings throughout and that it is a matter of public importance and of considerable interest? While it is a private sector matter, will he say to the House that the Government and the Cabinet have in fact argued the merits of both these proposals? That is the first point.
There is a second brief question that I want to put to the Minister. The Statement refers to the agreement offering firm prospects of long-term viability. The financial difficulties which have been referred to by him and which are referred to in the Statement have employment implications. We have been informed that as a result of the economics of the financial crisis in which the company has been involved several thousand men will lose their work. Can he say what are the implications for employment of the new agreement? Does it in fact mean that these jobs are now saved?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, the Government are involved in so far as our leading industrial companies do have discussions with Government departments from time to time; so the Government were aware of the difficulties of Westland plc. However, it is not for the Government either to advise or to support one proposition against another. Indeed, both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have never disagreed that in the last resort the decision is one for the company.
In response to the next question that the noble Lord asked me, may I say that I understand that the company is quite shortly to make known details of the agreement that they have accepted in principle with United Technologies Fiat. It will then of course be put before the shareholders, and I understand that a meeting of the shareholders has been called. The noble Lord will know that the shareholders will have three weeks from that date in which to make their views known to the board of the company. As regards the noble Lord's last question, which concerned redundancies, as the Statement said, the board of the company has made it quite clear that in accepting the United Technologies Fiat proposition in principle, it was—and they have said this—to ensure the future of the company and that of its employees. I suggest that any question of redundancy at this time is quite hypothetical.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend is not a lone voice on this side of the House. I imagine that most people who have any understanding of business at this level would agree with the Minister absolutely in his Statement. This seems to be a case where any final decisions ought to be made by the people who are running the company. It is right that they should seek all the information that they can obtain. It is right that the Government, if they have any interest at all, should let that interest be known to the company. But the final decision ought to be made by the company, which is in full possession of all the details regarding employment and the general techniques it adopts. I suggest it would be deplorable if we started allowing politics to enter into this question. It is a matter which is full of technicalities. Any future partners ought to know better than any Government do with whom they are likely to work and are more likely to make the decision which is the right one regarding any sources from which they obtain their finance. Though we have been silent on these Benches until now, I should like the Minister to feel that his Statement has the support of all reasonable people who understand the working of business and who do not want to bring in any political advantage, because there seems to have been a bit of personal trouble on the fringes of certain discussions.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most interested in what my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicolls has to say about this matter. Of course, he is quite right to underline the fact that at the end of the day it is a matter for the commercial judgment of the company.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if that is so, and if at the end of the day the decision has been made by some private organisation, what was the Cabinet meeting about? Why do we have a Cabinet? Or is it a complete waste of time? This is a pretty poverty stricken Cabinet, I admit; nevertheless, they have a right to say on behalf of the British people what is to happen to a firm of which the British people are its best customers and to say whether we are to support Europe or the Americanisation of this firm. Therefore this must be a Cabinet decision on behalf of the people. We may not agree with it but the Cabinet has a right to make it. If we are to say, "Oh, no, it is a matter for the private entrepreneurs", then why bother with this procedure at all? Why should it have gone to the Cabinet?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I thought I had made it quite clear in answer to an earlier supplementary question that the interests of Ministers of the Government were the same as those of the two departments concerned, notably the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry, in that Ministers have never disagreed that in the last resort the decision is one for the company concerned.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the Minister tell us whether the cash offer or the prospects from the American side was the deciding factor?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I really do not know what the deciding factor or factors were. The company has not made that information public. It has

573
said that in due course it will release details of the proposition which it is apparently thinking of accepting. I shall await that information with the same interest as the noble Lord.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
5.37 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. B1.
Page 1, line 5, after ("Shall") insert ("subject to such decision or modification as the appropriate local authority shall determine")
The noble Lord said: In speaking briefly on Amendment No. B1, I should like the leave of the Committee to speak also on Amendment No. 18A which is in the same terms.
Amendment No. 18A: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after ("shall") insert ("subject to such decision or modification as the appropriate local authority shall determine")
The Auld Committee pointed out several times in the report that conditions of trading vary greatly throughout the United Kingdom, and in paragraph 219 of their report it is indicated that shopping seemed to them to be one area where a reasonable case might be made for local discretion. The object of these two amendments therefore was to bring the local authorities back into some sphere of influence in these shopping activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has been most helpful in his reply to my Amendment No. A1 in which he dealt at length with the position of the local authorities. Therefore I should like to read carefully what he has to say and reserve the right to bring this matter to the attention of the Committee again as I think fit later on. In these circumstances I do not propose to move these two amendments.
[Amendment No. B1, not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 1
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("Part IV of that Act")
The right reverend Prelate said: Before I speak briefly to this amendment, may I just say how much I regretted that, owing to illness in my family, I was unable to be present for the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. Of course I have read the proceedings very carefully and it is in the light of that that I have put down this amendment and a subsequent one. It seems clear to me that the real issue is between those who believe that total deregulation of Sunday trading is the only possible way to deal with the present admittedly chaotic and unsatisfactory situation, and those who believe that some reform is not only desirable but possible.
I spoke to your Lordships on that aspect of the issue during the debate on the gracious Speech and nothing that I have heard or read since then has led me to change my views. I believe that the Government seriously underestimate the effect on the life of our
574
society which total deregulation would have. As I said then, the effect of liberalising legislation is very seldom that which its sponsors think it will be. I am certain that if the Bill passes in its present form the nation as a whole will gradually but assuredly take it to be a signal from the Government that Sunday is no different from any other day. The pattern and rhythm of our life will be lost.
At this point let me just say that I was very disturbed to hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said about freedom for people to shop, and so on. None of us enjoys total freedom. The freedom that we are privileged to enjoy is always at the expense of somebody else's. We are concerned here with a question of balancing out the needs and the desires of those who wish to shop on Sundays and those who, in my judgment very properly, put great weight upon the fact that there is one day in the week when there is general rest. That has its effect in many ways which I believe have not been adequately taken into account by the advocates of the Bill. I referred yet again in the debate on the gracious Speech to what the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis had said to me about the effect that it could have on the demands made upon our police.
In summing-up the debate on Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said that it must be up to the English people to make their choice. I agree, but if people are to make a choice they must have a framework in which they are free to do so. If one looks back at the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, or those of the noble Baroness, it is a question of balance. How are we to ensure that we all have as much freedom in this matter as we can properly enjoy and should enjoy, and again have the framework provided by the law which enables us to exercise that freedom by power of choice? It is, I believe, difficult to exaggerate the importance of a society recognising corporately the need for a day of rest. It is part of the natural order, and I believe that we ignore that fact at our peril.
Your Lordships' House has not shrunk in the past from considering what legislative solutions are possible to highly complex and difficult problems, and has not attempted to avoid those problems by the kind of solution which is proposed here. A great variety of options are presented to your Lordships in the amendments which are before the Committee. They should be debated with all the care and examination which your Lordships customarily give. I am advised that if any of the amendments should be passed, the necessary amendment on the lines of that to which I am now speaking—namely, the omission of the words "Part IV of that Act"—can be considered on Report, and I shall not be pressing this amendment to a Division.
I do not want to ask the Committee to make a decision on this point before your Lordships have had an opportunity to consider all the possibilities which will be put before you and argued out—possibilities which afford a way of compromise between leaving the situation as it is, which as far as I know nobody wants, and total deregulation. In this situation I believe that the proper and honourable way forward is for this Committee to seek a via media. It is with that in mind that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Your Lordships will have regretted not to have heard the right reverend Prelate on Second Reading, will now even more regret it, knowing what kept him from our deliberations, and will be glad to have his contribution today. I fully expected that this amendment would be grouped with others. Obviously that is the general intention of the right reverend Prelate. But it is not grouped, and so we can only speak and come to a decision on the amendment as it stands.
What this amendment does is to say that Part IV of the Shops Act 1950 and the Fifth Schedule which depends on it shall remain part of our law. We had a far-ranging debate at Second Reading on the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, to the terms of which, and their significance, already today I have ventured to draw attention. I certainly do not intend to reopen the matters that were fully discussed on Second Reading and on that amendment. But this amendment, I respectfully submit, is quite unacceptable.
The one matter on which your Lordships were united in the Second Reading debate was that the present law was unsupportable; that it was widely disregarded; that it was derided; and that it brought the law generally into contempt. The Auld Committee said in paragraph 28:
"it brings the law, and the criminal law at that, into disrepute".
That was spelt out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham when (at col. 1069) he said:
"It is of course common ground that there are many outdated and inappropriate anomalies in the Shops Act 1950".
That was put even more strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said, speaking towards the end of the debate (at col. 1159):
"the present legislation is completely indefensible".
I know that the right reverend Prelate, because he indicated such, has an ulterior intention in moving the amendment, but what it does is to ask us to confirm the present legislation, which is "completely indefensible" in the words of the noble Baroness. I submit that, whatever view one takes of the Bill, there can be only one answer to the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: The right reverend Prelate has explained that the amendment is effectively to act as a peg on which to hang the various alternatives which are to be put to us later, and so I do not think that it is necessary for me to speak at length in answering some of the points that he has raised in the speech that we did not have the benefit of when, sadly, he could not be here at Second Reading.
I respect the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, on this. I feel myself that since the right reverend Prelate has explained it in that way, it might be better for me not to go into the detail now but merely to say that I am perfectly content with that suggestion if it is procedurally correct. I do not believe that it is procedurally incorrect. I understood the right reverend Prelate to say that he is going to withdraw the amendment. If so, I am content and we will deal with the detail in due course.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am most grateful to the Minister for his understanding reply. I should like
576
to make one comment in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I do not want to raise again a matter that was debated earlier today, but what he said is only valid if no amendments at all are going to follow. Only if no amendments were to follow would we be placed precisely in the position of having the existing legislation. I have indicated that I see this as a paving amendment. I have indicated my purpose in moving it. I now ask leave of the Committee to withdraw it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before the right reverend Prelate does withdraw the amendment—that course will no doubt be acceptable to the Committee—we should not allow to stand unanswered the general atmosphere that the right reverend Prelate introduced into his few words. He said that the result of the situation as it now stands would mean that Sunday would be no different from any other day. If, when we discuss future amendments, we are going to have in our mind that the risk we are trying to avoid is Sunday being made the same in every respect as any other day, then the prejudices in support of some of the amendments may lead us down the wrong path.
No one wants Sunday to be the same as any other day. If the Bill is left as it is without amendment, there is no question of its being the same as any other day. The ones who will make Sunday different from any other day are the people themselves, all the Christian believers, covering the whole country. We should not discuss any future amendments with the suggestion left by the right reverend Prelate that what we are trying to do is to remove the real meaning of Sunday. We want to remove the nonsense of bringing the law into it. It is weakening the appeal of the Sabbath if the law is left as it is.
Lord Mishcon: I am awfully sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has chosen to speak at this juncture. The right reverend Prelate delivered, as one would expect, a most helpful speech that was respectful to the Committee. It was dealt with, with his usual understanding, by the Minister. To have introduced another debate right at the end of what was a very diplomatic exchange was not, in my view, helpful to the Committee. Many of us could get up and speak about the way in which Sunday might be altered—altered for policemen, transport and shop workers and so on. I propose to keep silent and to deal with the matter as it was so gracefully dealt with by the right reverend Prelate and by the Minister.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord is entitled to do just that. I do not believe, however, that he should feel that people who have a reaction to what the right reverend Prelate said should remain silent. The right reverend Prelate created an atmosphere in the Committee when he used the words that the Bill as it stands would result in making Sunday the same as any other day. That is not what we should have in mind in proceeding with the amendments.
Lord Glenarthur: I should like to say to my noble friend that I rather hope that the view that he puts will be brought forward certainly by myself and I expect by other noble Lords when we debate the individual amendments. That is what I think the right reverend

577
Prelate is trying to achieve. I hope that we might be able to proceed on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I had previously given notice, as the Marshalled List shows, that I intended to move that Clause 1 do not stand part of the Bill. However, like the right reverend Prelate, I have taken advice on the complications that can occur if matters are pressed at this stage. Simply to demonstrate to those outside the House that we are not afraid to debate each of the issues separately on their merits, I have prepared a Clause 1 stand part speech which I could deliver at some length. But it would not be helpful to the House at this stage. There are detailed matters to discuss, there are time pressures, and the night is young. There are many more nights before us; there are many more speeches to be made. In view of this, now is perhaps not the time to speak on Clause 1 stand part. Whether or not noble Lords detect it in the future, my speech will be made at some other opportunity. I do not therefore intend to oppose Clause 1 stand part.
Lord Sandford: I had not intended to speak on the previous amendment or on Clause 1 stand part. I did not, of course, know what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London had it in mind to do. I was supposing that he would press the amendment. As he has not, I wonder whether I can ask for guidance from the Chair. The effect of Clause 1 unamended is to remove Part IV of the Shops Act 1950, which includes Clause 47 to which is appended Schedule 5. If we now move on from this position with Clause 1 intact, although a number of amendments can still be debated, I would suggest that Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and possibly 13 and 14 cannot be discussed because all relate to a clause in the Shops Act that is now no longer there.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I intended to follow the good example of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, but I wanted to ask a couple of technical questions on Clause 1 and to make a point on them. I wish to refer to the two Scottish Acts that are repealed by Clause 1, paragraph (b). The point of substance is this. Obviously, the critics of the Bill, those who fear deregulation, those who point to the hubbub and the riot that might ensue, those who feel that the character of Sunday might be utterly changed, that family life might be disrupted and the people demoralised, are met with the answer, "Look at Scotland". The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham dealt with that matter to the obvious satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, by saying that the trading in Scotland had never been regulated. The right reverend Prelate makes a sign as if he wants to intervene. I have the quotation here, although I think that I have paraphrased it fairly.
My question is this. First, are these two Acts that we are engaged in repealing not precisely Acts that control Sunday trading in Scotland? My comment was that they are consistent with a view that any commercial
578
activity including, for example, sheep-shearing or labouring, or any of those sorts of things, were also to be suppressed on Sunday. That was entirely consistent with the view of the Church in England at the time, at any rate, of the first Act. One has the records of the ecclesiastical courts. One finds that a woman who carded her wool on a Sunday was liable to have to sit on the stool of repentance or, in Scotland, on the creepie-chair. One found that a man who dug his garden might have to stand barefoot in a white shirt with a candle in his hand; and if he actually traded or ploughed his furrow on a Sunday he could be, and on occasion was, flogged. That is entirely consistent, as I read them, with what these two Scottish Acts seem to do.
6 p.m.
The point about which we complain, and which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, put so cogently, was the tunnel vision which singles out retail trading, of all commercial and industrial activities, as something particularly deleterious. That is not done by these Acts. The reason that there is no regulation in Scotland is that the Scottish law on statute is different from ours. As long as something is on our Statute Book it subsists. But that is not so in Scotland. They have the doctrine which goes by the technical name of desuetude. I remember being surprised when sitting on one Scottish appeal case to find that apparently football was illegal in Scotand until 1907; and I was then reassured that there had not been massive evasion of the law but that a statute which is not observed—as these statutes on their terms were not observed—falls into desuetude and no longer forms part of the law. That is why Sunday trading was regulated in Scotand and is now, without any obvious ill effect, unregulated. The point, therefore, that is made by those who rely on the Scottish experience, in so far as it is safe to rely on any other culture or community's experience, is completely valid.
The final question I wanted to ask is this. Why, is it necessary in these circumstances to repeal these Acts? So far as I understand, they have fallen into desuetude. When I was concerned with the Joint Consolidation Committee we repealed in a Statute Law Appeals Bill a number of obsolete Scottish Acts. These were apparently not among them.
I do not expect the noble Lord to answer this final point today, but I should like to have an answer at some time because it affects more than these Acts. I found great difficulty in relating the way in which they are referred marginally in the Statute with the Scottish Statute Book that is available in your Lordships' Library. That is a very minor point, but one which may arise in future when we try to scrutinise Scottish statutes.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has asked me three questions which I shall endeavour to answer. He is concerned about the relationship between the two Scottish Acts that are referred to in Clause 1(b) of the Bill. All I can tell the noble Lord is that they are pre-Union Acts. These Acts are still on the Statute Book, but as the noble Lord knows and describes, they are deemed to have fallen into desuetude, which is a purely Scottish

579
phenomenon, I gather, because for a very considerable period no prosecutions, or indeed floggings, have been brought under the Act. I understand that it is still necessary to repeal them even though they have fallen into desuetude. But I am afraid that I am unable to help the noble and learned Lord so far as relating this Act to the Scottish Statute Book is concerned. I certainly note the point that he makes. Perhaps I can correspond with him about that.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I could have an answer from the Chair to the question that I put when we started debating that Clause 1 stand part?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): I must tell the noble Lord that that is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair has no power to rule on such matters. What the Chair does is, if necessary, to decide not to call an amendment. But I shall not anticipate what may be decided when another deputy chairman is in the chair.
Lord Glenarthur: I wonder whether I can help my noble friend. I am advised that my noble friend is correct in saying that if Amendment No. 1 has been withdrawn, then Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14—I am not quite clear about Amendment No. 3, I do not think that comes into it—would be inconsistent with the decision to repeal Part IV of the 1950 Act, so those amendments cannot be moved. I must confess that I was not aware myself precisely how this stood until about a minute ago. But that is what I understand the procedure to be.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Surely the situation cannot be as has been explained? The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in facing the House with this problem, clearly must have had the matter put to him, as we have, only in the last minute. It would be inconceivable that the problem, as he explained to us, has been known not only to himself but to others, and not known to the Government Whips' office, the Minister or the Table Office, because all of those sources gave advice to the right reverend Prelate and myself on the procedure which led to the withdrawal of Amendment No. 1.
It is now said that if Amendment No. 1 is not proceeded with, there are consequences. Amendment No. 1 was deliberately not moved, as the record will show. The Minister nodded his head in order that we could proceed to debate the other issues. We are told—after all parties to the situation have worked along a certain course, ill-advised or ignorant, whichever one might say—that the right reverend Prelate not only did not move his amendment fully, and did not press it to a vote, but that it was not debated on a certain premise. Then we are told what the consequences will be. That surely is not the way in which we should conduct our business. If the effect of what we have done is to deny the opportunity to debate the other amendments then that is completely wrong.
The matter is not beyond recall. The amendments will certainly not be exhausted this evening. There are other ways in which amendments can be withdrawn. But I make an appeal to the Minister to use whatever good offices he can to ensure that the understandings
580
which we received in good faith are ones which will be kept. Otherwise the House will be guilty of witnessing a situation in which the right reverend Prelate, in the utmost good faith, has withdrawn an amendment which he certainly would not have withdrawn unless he had received the advice that he had.
Lord Denning: May I say—
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether, to be helpful, I can speak at this stage, because I would very much appreciate, as I am sure the House would, any of the helpful observations that could be made by noble and learned Lords who have done us the honour of being present during this debate. Therefore, I should like to make my remarks now. I know that the Committee would regret it if what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said were to be the case. The noble Lord has done a service to the Committee by pointing out a difficulty. I know that the noble Lord the Minister—who is nodding his head— with his usual sense of fairness would not want to exclude amendments merely on a technicality. Therefore, I have rushed in a manuscript amendment which I hope will fulfil the Committee's wish. My manuscript amendment is that Clause 1 shall stand as it is, but be amended by the addition of these words:
"subject to any following provisions of this Act to the contrary".
In other words, Clause I will say that Part IV and the schedule to which reference is made go, but that they go only,
"subject to the following provisions of this Act",
which will be contrary to that. Therefore, I believe that the amendments can be debated if there are no following provisions of the Act to the contrary. This means that the words could be deleted at the Report stage, and we can carry on. I would only, so disrespectfully, have stopped the noble and learned Lords from speaking because I wanted to put my suggestion. If I then said something which they wanted to correct, I should like to listen to them so that I could respectfully and humbly try to put the Committee in order.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may intervene, this time uncontroversially, because, looking at the matter in advance, it struck me that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, must be right, although I thought that Amendment No. 3 would also technically be out of order. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, it was not the withdrawal of Amendment No. 1 which was significant, but the fact that Clause 1 had been ordered to stand part of the Bill; that states that Part IV and Schedule 5 of the 1950 Act shall cease to have effect.
When I considered what I thought was the entirely valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, it struck me that all the subsequent amendments, though technically out of order, could easily be put right—they could be discussed in principle and the defects easily put right on Report by very small amendments to each of them. Whether or not that is a better way in which to proceed than that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I do not know.
I am always distrustful of immediate drafting because I have experienced so many disasters in relation to

581
that. We now have the noble Lord the Chief Whip to advise us. However, I suggest that one or other method might be adopted in order for us to discuss the realities of the situation.
Lord Denning: This technicality ought to be overcome. My noble friend Lord Mishcon has put forward a good proposal, as has my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. We must in some way overcome this technicality and discuss the merits of the amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to remind your Lordships that the only matter we are discussing at this moment is the Question whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has asked whether he may move:
"Clause 1, line 5, at end add the following words ("subject to any following provisions of the Act to the contrary")".
I am not prepared to put that amendment to the Committee if there is any substantial body of agreement against doing so. However, if there is no objection, I propose to enable the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, formally to move that amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: May I suggest that we would be setting a very bad precedent if we followed that course. We have a great deal of work to do on many other matters over many Sessions which will take up many years to come. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on his quick thinking in providing what could be a solution if this was the only time that we would ever ask a Committee of this House to accept Clause 1 of a Bill. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that this quick answer to a technical question may well put us in much more trouble in the future.
Fortunately for us, our parliamentary procedure is such that there is no need for the points in these amendments to go undiscussed. At the Report stage any discussion that is deemed to be warranted can be entered into in exactly the same detail as it would be now in Committee. I suggest to my noble friends that we would be setting a bad precedent if we took up this suggestion. Clause 1 is often the operative clause in most of the Bills that come before us, and if we accept a last-minute manuscript amendment, it could mean that Clause 1 in all our Bills would mean nothing. If this manoeuvre is accepted in this case, it will be taken up in many other cases. If my suggestion were to mean that we would not have the benefit of the discussion that could flow, I would not feel so confident about it. However, we have the Report stage and Third Reading and all the stages in the other place with which to deal with this. This is a precedent which we ought not to set, because I believe that, as workaday Parliamentarians, we shall live to regret it.
Lord Sandford: Perhaps I may comment again, since I am responsible for starting this rather awkward debate. When I read the Marshalled List I really thought that the right reverend Prelate would move Amendment No. 1 because so many other
582
amendments seemed to depend on it. I thought so all the more because the right reverend Prelates are present in such force. As we have reached the present situation, I think that there is only one thing which we can do, which is to put the Question that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill to the test by calling a Division. If that is carried and Clause 1 remains part of the Bill, as we have been advised, the amendments that I read out cannot be moved. However, they can certainly be moved at the Report stage, and there are plenty of other worthwhile amendments still to be debated. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the Committee addresses itself solely to the question whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of London: As I have been mentioned once or twice, perhaps I may say what actually happened so far as I was concerned. When I first saw the amendments I had exactly the same impression as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford: that it would be for me to move Amendment No. 1 and the others would follow accordingly. I was then advised by reputable authorities that, if we, first, made a decision on the first amendment, this would have the disadvantage of apparently anticipating all the decisions which were made on the other amendments. That seemed to me to be a very understandable objection and I asked what would happen if I had leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1 and these other amendments were agreed to. The answer quite simply was—and I think I can quote the words—"there was nothing unusal in having, as a result of the Committee stage, contradictions in the Bill as it then stands". I was told that these would be sorted out at the Report stage when the matter could be remedied.
I asked leave to wthdraw Amendment No. 1 entirely in good faith without having the slightest impression that it would prejedice any of the subsequent amendments. I should be deeply distressed if I have been wrongly advised and those amendments were not now to be moved so that they can be debated in the Committee.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I wonder whether I could suggest another course of action? I do so with the greatest humility. The Motion standing before the Committee is that Clause 1 stand part. If I were to move as an amendment to that Motion that Clause 1 be considered after Clause 2 of the Bill has been disposed of, we would then have all the opportunities to consider these amendments before we came back to the principle of Clause 1. I would be happy to move that amendment if it required any sort of agreement of the Committee.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a helpful suggestion. My noble friend Lord Colville has made another which I am advised would be rather more in order. If my noble friend is happy to move that amendment, then I am advised that that is perfectly acceptable if your Lordships agree.
Lord Mishcon: May I express my personal appreciation to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for coming forward with a quite obviously better suggestion than my own. I am most grateful to him.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That further consideration of Clause 1 be postponed until after the second clause of the Bill has been disposed of?
Moved accordingly, and on Question, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We now come to the second amendment on the Marshalled List. I have to point out to your Lordships that there has been a manuscript amendment tabled in substitution for it, also in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I have a duty to your Lordships' Committee to point out the difference between the amendment on the Marshalled List and the amendment in the manuscript form. It is that in the manuscript form, in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause and after the word "applications" in the fifth line of that subsection, the following words are inserted:
"for permission and determinations by local authorities and Secretary of State's powers".
It is therefore my duty now to call upon the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to move that amendment after Clause 1.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved manuscript Amendment No. 2A:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Supervision by local planning authority.
.—(1) The carrying on of any retail trade or business on a Sunday shall be subject to supervision by the local planning authority.
(2) The granting or refusal of permission for Sunday trading shall be decided in the same way as the granting or refusal of permission for development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971; and like provisions to sections 25 to 37 of that Act shall apply to applications for permission and determinations by local authorities and Secretary of State's powers and like provisions to sections 87 to 89 of that Act shall apply to enforcement.
(3) Permission of the local authority for Sunday trading shall be deemed to have been granted to any shop carrying on a retail trade or business on Sundays before the passing of this Act, and in respect of which proceedings have not already been instituted by the local authority under section 71 of the Shops Act 1950.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am sorry that your Lordships have had this as a manuscript amendment. It was not really my fault; it was the copier's fault. I can explain it all later. It is quite a technical amendment.
In proposing this amendment may I perhaps help to clear up a little of the discussion which took place earlier. I am going to quote the statement of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur at Second Reading. He said:
"The law has decayed. It must be replaced, and in replacing it we must not create new anomalies which would lead us back … to the present unsatisfactory state of affairs."—[Official Report, 2/12/85; col. 1063.]
I agree with every word of that. We must replace it.
There is not a word on the Government side, or in their Clause 1, for any replacing material. That is why I hope all of the amendments will be considered by your Lordships one by one because they are good propositions for replacing the bad law. But let me first emphasise the problem and the quandary we are in. It is true that the law has fallen into disrepute, it is full of anomalies, inconsistencies and absurdities, and that has been made the most of by many quarters. Further,
584
it has been categorised as creating a crime when there should be no crime.
To the background of this, for the authentic statement of the problem I should like to refer to the Auld Report at paragraph 25:
"The result of the many flaws in the 1950 Act is that it is not generally enforced … Some authorities have adopted a policy of not enforcing the law at all. Many others act only in response to complaints. Others select certain traders for prosecution, frequently branches of the major national multiples … The reasons for such patchy enforcement of the law are obvious. Many local authorities are out of sympathy with it. It is being widely disregarded by shopkeepers all over the country to the evident satisfaction of Sunday shoppers".
That is the state of affairs which must be replaced. We cannot allow the law not to be enforced. We cannot allow it to fall into disrepute. Therefore, we must replace it, I would suggest, by one or other of these amendments which your Lordships are going to consider.
The first part of my proposal is to make it perfectly clear that we should trust the local authorities in enforcing the law. That is what the Shops Act itself did, and it made it their duty to enforce it. I am afraid that many of them have not done it, but it is a vital principle that it is the local authorities who should have control over shopping on Sundays.
I say that for this reason: they are there and represent the people of the district. You will know in the district councils how Winchester, for instance, not only looks after the city itself but 12 miles round it. The whole catchment area for shopping comes within the jurisdiction of the Winchester council. The same for Basingstoke. We have 100,000 people there, but the council considers the whole catchment area for 12 miles around. For Portsmouth and Southampton, they are the people to consider whether or not there should be Sunday trading allowed in this place or that place. They are the authorities which are the right people to do it. But I would say not by the criminal law, as has been complained of. I should like to see—and I have suggested it—that it should be like our planning controls.
If my amendments were accepted let me tell you how they would work. I would first take those cases where the local authorities have turned a blind eye to what is going on. They have turned a blind eye to the small shops. They have not sought to enforce the Act at all. They have turned a blind eye in some quarters to do-it-yourself and garden centres, and in some cases to street markets. They have turned a blind eye to all those and virtually permitted them. In respect of all those my amendment would say, "You have got deemed permission. You need not apply at all. You can carry on as you have been doing all these years, because virtually you have been given permission by the local authority". My proposal does not disturb the existing position at all.
However, my next point is this. Supposing someone in any of our districts wants to start up a new shop, or to turn his existing shop into Sunday trading when he has never done it before, or wants to turn his office into a shop, whatever it may be. If he has not done it before, then the procedure is quite simple. He can apply—as he would do for planning permission—to the local authority for permission to carry on trade on Sunday. There could be a notice put up, and

585
objections put in, either by the residents or by the local traders. After listening to objections the authority itself would decide, as it often does. In planning permissions, they do it every day, with no trouble.
In the rare cases where a trader wished to trade on Sunday and the local authority said, "No", then he could appeal to the Minister, to the Secretary of State. And the Secretary of State could enforce a uniform policy. That is in regard to people who want to start trading on a Sunday when they had not done so before.
6.30 p.m.
With the third category, it is even more so. If any person is going to set up a new shop, or turn an office into a shop, or make a new garden centre, he must get planning permission anyway. Why should there not be annexed to that the question whether he could open on Sundays or not? We had a case years ago from Petticoat Lane, the street market, and the planning authority said it could be used on Sundays; and it was upheld. So you have all those categories which can simply be dealt with by the local authority.
I am as much in favour of keeping Sunday a special day as anyone. We must do all we can to keep our Sundays as a day of peace and quiet. But, surely, the local authorities can be trusted to know that as well as any of us. I would trust our planning authorities. The areas for concern, about which the Auld Committee pointed out that they were most anxious, were the local residents in and near these shops which are going to open on Sundays. They were most anxious about it. They said that they would like to be able to do something to help them but they did not think that they could. Again, there are the shopworkers. That gave them the biggest worry of all: the people who worked in the shops. "We should like to help you", it used to be said, "but we cannot". Is not this system, a new system which I propose, the answer?
Let me tell you how the Auld Committee did it. This is what they said. I have their very words. By the way, my proposal has not appeared in any of the Bills hitherto. They have been discussed through and through; but mine is a new one. The only place where this proposal is contained in the Auld Report is in paragraph 274. This is what it says:
"Another proposal made was to submit all proposed late-night and Sunday opening to a procedure similar to that in planning control, involving rights of objection by local residents, the granting or otherwise of permission by local authorities after the holding of a public meeting, and rights of appeal from the decision of local authorities to the Secretary of State for the Environment.".
That was what they said and what was put before them in order to protect the local residents.
And this is how the Auld Committee disposed of that proposal. They mixed it up with applications to the Justices and all that sort of thing. And, in paragraph 275, they said, in regard to these:
"In our view, these and all similar suggestions for judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative control in such cases would not work. In their various forms they would involve an expensive, cumbrous and time-consuming legal machinery.".
That is how they disposed of the suggestion. My answer is that they were completely mistaken in regard to my proposal. There would not be any legal machinery at all. It would not be time-consuming or
586
expensive. It would just be very similar to all the planning. Your Lordships, all of us, have had planning applications made for permission for this, that and the other turned down or granted. You must take your application to the local authority to see if there are any objections. They decide it. If there is real trouble, you can appeal. But there you are! I would say that the Committee are mistaken in talking about this time-consuming legal machinery.
So the objection made by the Auld Committee, it seems to me, is not satisfactory. Therefore I come back to mine and I hope that it will be seriously considered. As I have said, I would rely on the local authorities. The local residents will be there, the traders who want to open will be represented there; all those who objected will be there. The authorities will represent everybody there. At the moment, all these people go. The holidays resorts, the airports; all those still go on virtually by permission of the local authorities. I would submit that this is quite a good, new suggestion which has never been considered by Parliament before. It is well worthy of your Lordships' consideration. As to keeping Sunday as Sunday, I would trust our local councillors. They are good people who have it just as much in mind as all of us to preserve those Sundays. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I started my career at the Bar in the chambers of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. We were subsequently, as heads of our respective divisions in the Supreme Court, close colleagues working together day by day. And I never remember a difference of opinion of any substance. I should like also to flatter myself with claiming personal friendship. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that this is the most extraordinary amendment that has been moved by my noble and learned friend. Of course, he has explained it with his matchless clarity so that it appears an entirely simple operation: the Auld Committee got it entirely wrong in thinking that there were any complications at all!
One can defeat a Bill by a vote on Second Reading, whether direct or by a critical amendment; one can disembowel it by refusing to let the operative clause stand part; one can amend it spoilingly. But there is another way and that is to prevent its operation by tying up its operators in miles of red tape and smothering them with a blanket of bureaucracy. That is what this does. It applies the Town and Country Planning Act. That Act runs to 379 pages of the statute book; it consists of 295 sections; it has no fewer than 25 schedules. That is put forward with the memories of Stanstead, Okehampton and the Archway Inquiry fresh in your Lordships' minds. Quite apart from the fact that subsection (3) gives an advantage to those who heretofore have been trading illegally, I ask your Lordships to say that that sort of bureaucracy applied to this Bill is quite out of place.
If we are going to have freedom to trade on Sunday, do not let each transaction—and they go to the scheduled transactions, too—be such that any willing buyer who wants to buy a box of matches on a Sunday from a willing seller has to be subject to all this paraphernalia of the Town and Country Planning Act. I hope your Lordships will have nothing to do with it.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Quite apart from the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I wonder whether I can draw to the attention of the Committee some rather technical problems, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has not really addressed. He seeks, as he said, to attract the whole of the code which appears under the Town and County Planning Acts so as to apply it to the fairly narrow question of whether or not an existing shop, which has not previously and illegally been open on Sunday for trading, shall be allowed to do so.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has thought deeply about this aspect, but at the moment he is not making it at all clear in the amendment what sort of criteria should be in the minds of the local authority, upon whom he places such reliance, or indeed in the mind of the Secretary of State if there should be an appeal—because of course the jurisdiction is the same. He has attracted the planning Acts, and they have a basic criterion for all the decisions whether or not planning permission shall be given. It is this: you have to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, which nowadays is the structure plan and any local plan approved under it, and any other material considerations.
The noble and learned Lord, when he sat in this Chamber judicially, and on quantities of occasions I think in the Court of Appeal, has had to consider what is meant by a condition or consideration which falls in the latter expression, "any other material consideration". It has been made abundantly plain by the courts over the past 30 years or so that only pure planning considerations can come into that exercise. For instance, it would be quite improper to consider the welfare of the workforce in shops. It would almost certainly be entirely improper to consider whether or not the local authority likes the idea of trading on Sunday. Those would be instantly struck out by the Court of Appeal, and they would have been by the noble and learned Lord when he used to sit there, because there they are not planning considerations.
So what is one left with? It is possible, I suppose, that there is the point about disturbance of the neighbours. But that would be a very difficult point to raise I think because what the noble and learned Lord has done is to allow to continue all those shops which are trading in areas where they have been doing so, legally or illegally, in the past and where presumably the maximum impact on the neighbours has already taken place. He would, however, put through the various planning hoops any owner of an existing shop who wishes to open on Sunday in areas where this has not previously happened and where for the first time therefore the whole question of impact upon the neighbours may become an issue. I do not know how one is to judge whether or not it would be an acceptable impact when you apply it only to those circumstances where the point has never previously arisen and deny anybody jurisdiction to consider it where the point already has arisen because the shops have been open. It is a very difficult exercise.
Another point, too, very often comes up and it is a proper planning consideration as regards shopping considerations and requirements: that is the impact of the turnover. There are two problems here. First of all,
588
the noble and learned Lord has only applied this new code to shops which have not previously opened on Sunday and therefore one tends not to know very much about the extent to which in that area they would draw trade from other days of the week or from other areas nearby.
There is an even worse consideration, which is that under the planning law if you once have a permission—and this is drafted as being a permission under the planning law—then it will inure for the benefit of the land for ever after unless it is revoked: and that is an expensive exercise. So if you try to consider an applicant for a planning permission to open on Sunday and you look at the trade he is doing and the effect that might have, either in terms of upsetting the neighbours or in terms of the impact on the turnover of the total shopping public in the area, you cannot in the least gurantee that the following day after permission has been given the shop will not be sold to another retailer who will use the shop in an entirely different way with a wholly different effect on the neighbours and on the economic impact on the area.
6.45 p.m.
Those are very serious difficulties and the noble and learned Lord in his amendment does not really provide any criteria at all, upon the basis of which the exercise could be carried out. I would, however, say to him that in all the experience I have had, it would be very difficult indeed to use the small number of genuine planning considerations that would be available and to discard all those which would certainly be inappropriate and come to the sort of decision that I think he wants.
Therefore, unless the noble and learned Lord can explain in very much greater detail and clarity to me what criteria he thinks ought to be imported into the adaptation of this code so as to get over these difficulties, I really do not see how the local authority can do it or how the Secretary of State on appeal can do it: nor indeed do I think it will be possible for the local authority or the Secretary of State, if an enforcement notice was served to try to stop somebody from trading on Sunday who had not got permission—I do not see how they could do it either, because into consideration of that there automatically comes an appeal to continue the use that is sought to be enforced. I think this Committee is in very great difficulty at the moment, on the basis of the information the noble and learned Lord has given about how this is to work. I certainly would not be happy with it as it stands.
Lord Mishcon: When I listened to the opening words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I must confess that I was much reminded of the speech of Mark Antony, and I would beg the noble and learned Lord, should I have the privilege of entering another world before he does, please not to participate in the funeral orations!
I find myself in this difficulty in listening to the debate so far. I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made a very important point when he said that the happy compromise very possibly was one where local authorities, with local people to judge, should decide in regard to their own areas what should

589
happen to retail trading on Sundays. It had an appeal to me. The more one can strengthen local government in this field of deciding what should happen in a locality, the better; and the more I think that your Lordships and this Committee might go away from our deliberations feeling a little easier in your consciences, this seems to me to be a possible way. I say "easier in your consciences" because there is one thing that presses upon us more than any other. Pass this Bill as it stands and you have done something for all time. It will never be changed back. Pass this Bill with an amendment and you might in future, in the light of experience, have further amendments one way or the other.
Therefore I favour the argument about the local authority. But then I heard the noble and learned Lord, who puts his arguments as once he did as a great advocate, and who judges things in the way that he did in the Court of Appeal, with consummate skill. Nevertheless, like the noble Viscount who has just spoken, when he limited or defined the powers of the local authority within the ambit of the planning authority and the planning Acts, I found myself wondering how this could ever work,
The noble Viscount. Lord Colville, is absolutely right. The considerations in regard to planning would have nothing to do, I fear, with the considerations that this Committee would want a local authority to employ in coming to a judgment on these matters. This Committee, I am afraid—and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, himself—would not want this to be dealt with upon the basis of: Do we have enough shops in this area open? Do we have similar shops already open?—on the assumption that they had permission to do that before this amendment came into force. These are considerations which I believe, on reflection, the noble and learned Lord himself will realise limit this amendment.
It so happens that there is another amendment to be moved, Amendment No. 4 to which I must not speak at the moment and to which I do not intend to speak, but which nevertheless has the benefit of the local authority without the limitation of the planning authority. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, having heard the debate so far, would decide that possibly in the face of what has been said it might not be appropriate to proceed with this amendment—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He mentioned Amendment No. 4. I do not now have much confidence in the Marshalled List, but I think he must refer to some other. If he does, may we know so that we can follow the argument?
Lord Mishcon: I stand corrected, and I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for pointing out my mistake. I meant Amendment No. 5, and not Amendment No. 4. I hope, therefore, that on consideration the noble and learned Lord will put his not inconsiderable weight behind the subsequent amendment after withdrawing the present one.
Lord Sainsbury: I rise with trepidation because, following such learned Lords and one who has particu-
590
lar experience in planning matters, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, perhaps a mere retired shopkeeper should make a contribution. Looking at the amendment for a moment from the viewpoint of what I consider very important people, the customers, the shoppers, would they not look at it possibly as an artificial, arbitrary geographical restraint, dependent on where they live? Would it not cause among shoppers a certain amount of confusion? Many shop in different areas from where they live and at different times. They would have to know the law for each area.
Turning to the shopkeepers, those with more than one shop face the possibility of some of their shops being allowed to open and others being forced to shut. Therefore, looking at it from a humble, practical point of view, I certainly find it very difficult to support this amendment.
Turning to the people who spent a long time considering the problems of the Shops Act—namely, the members of the committee—I should like to quote two paragraphs of the Auld Report. Paragraph 226 reads:
"But the major difficulty with a pattern of local variations, and it is one that would apply whatever the method of local determination, would be the lack of consistency inherent in the system, both geographically and over time. Policies vary from area to area, and the views of local authorities and shopkeepers in their areas are subject to change for political or other reasons. The inconsistency would perpetuate the lack of uniformity in the enforcement of the present restrictions, where traders subject to a regime of strict enforcement can lose business to their competitors across the local authority boundary."
My second quotation is from paragraph 227, which reads:
"In our view, a system in which the restriction of opening hours became a matter of local choice would aggravate the variations that the present inconsistent enforcement of the law has produced. Moreover, in those areas where it was decided to continue restrictions on trading hours, local authorities would have no better way of overcoming the difficulties of enforcement than they do at present."
Therefore, if this amendment is carried to a Division, I will vote against it.
Baroness Seear: I am extremely sorry to disagree with my very much more experienced ally, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, but it really seems a pity to treat the Auld Report, with all its virtues, as if it were Holy Writ. It is perfectly possible to be critical of the findings of the Auld Report, and if ever there was a case for local decision it is this. Circumstances vary in different localities. One can well see that in a holiday resort it is desirable that they should have greater opening during the summer season than during the winter season, and that is a matter for local decision.
One can think of a great many other circumstances in which what is appropriate in one area is not appropriate in another. What is more, the people who are going to enjoy or suffer from the opening of shops are the people living in that locality. Are we becoming so centralised in our thinking in this country that we cannot leave it to local people to decide whether it is a good thing to have an additional shop open or shut on a particular day?
As for consistency, how much does it really matter if you find that in the next road, in the next area, a particular dairy is not open, when a dairy is open in your area? It is not a matter where consistency is of any

591
very great significance. Like other speakers, I have wondered about the suggestion of local option, and I would remind your Lordships of the extremely powerful speech in favour of local option made by the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, on Second Reading. It seems questionable whether it is wise—though I hesitate to criticise anything put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—to have a planning authority. Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord would consider withdrawing this amendment and favouring Amendment No. 5, which backs local option without having the complications which nearly all of us, except the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, do not understand, it seems that it would be a very good idea if it could be done in this way.
Lord Stallard: I want to support the principle of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I do so with even more trepidation than the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, because I was not even a shopkeeper. But I was a member of a local authority for some years and I am very much aware of the problems in that same locality now because of the unruly expansion of Sunday trading at present and the difficulties that that is causing the local authority.
I am convinced that a safeguard must be written in. One of the obvious safeguards is that the local authority should exercise a discretion, perhaps more so than it does now, particularly under the planning laws. The arguments I heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, are arguments for amending the planning regulations and the planning laws. I would be only too happy to involve myself in that exercise, too, but that is not to do with this Bill. What I am arguing for and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was arguing for is a safeguard, some local authority control over what I consider to be one of the main objections to the unleashing of the terrible spread of social damage that will be caused by the complete deregulation of Sunday trading. The aspects of this social damage will be gone into in later amendments, but we know what they are. We know that it will mean more traffic wardens and more police. It will mean more cleansing services. These will all be loaded on to the local authority and this will mean increases in rates when such increases take place.
7 p.m.
Perhaps I may give an example of one market in the area of the local authority which I know best. This market has grown until it is now almost totally out of control. Shops that were single retail outlets are now being sub-divided into four, six, eight, 10, 12 and up to 20 stalls. They are no more than stalls. They are put down as separate shops, all within the same premises. It is utter chaos. They are charging fantastic rents for the stallholders to trade on a Sunday in these conditions. Food is being prepared and sold in the open air and in all weathers. There are no precautions and no conditions whatsoever. The local authority, together with the local police, are trying to cope.
The traffic position has become absolutely uncontrollable. It is not double parking or treble parking, but total chaos for the whole of Saturday and Sunday. The police have been unable to control it,
592
despite many valiant efforts. They have produced one scheme after another. The local authority has bent over backwards, using its discretion under planning and public health regulations, to try to cope, but the whole thing has now become totally chaotic. It is obvious that there must now be some re-imposition of local control. There must be local enforcement of the regulations, be they planning or public health regulations, or both.
I hope that the Minister will take a more lenient view of this amendment. I shall certainly support it if it means that some control or discretion is restored to local authorities to prevent the kind of social damage that will be caused if total deregulation goes through in its present form.
Baroness Phillips: I shall not speak at length, but I should like to point out to the noble Lord who has just spoken that this amendment would not help the situation that he described. I was extraordinarily shocked to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, whom I admire very much, make the immoral suggestion that groups which should be allowed to remain and not be subject to the local authority are the groups which are already open. These groups are already open illegally. If ever there was an advancement for squatters' rights, it seemed to be given to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Because they had not kept the law so far, that would be all right and they could carry on, but if anyone else came forward, they would be subject to the law. I would only say, because somebody else is going to say it, that when the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was speaking against the same kind of Bill in the other place he actually advanced the argument that it would be inconsistent to have one local authority granting this and another local authority granting that. One problem is that if you speak too often in either place, your speeches are always liable to be quoted back at you. The noble Lord has obviously changed his mind in the meantime, and it might as well be me who tells him as anybody else.
However attractive the argument of the noble and learned Lord, I am very shocked that he should suggest that if you are already in place illegally, there would be no need for you to be considered. I take the point made by the noble Viscount because I happen to occupy a building which has been the subject of local government planning for about seven years. I am hoping that it will go on for another seven years, so that I can remain there as a tenant. That gives some idea as to the length of time a local authority can take when trying to deal with something under the planning provisions.
Lord Seebohm: I shall be very brief this time. I feel that somehow local authorities must be brought into this Bill. I am not quite sure how you do it, and I do not think that this amendment is necessarily right. I speak as somebody who lives in Dedham, one of the most beautiful villages in Essex. Since a covered market has opened there seven days a week it has been ruined. The traffic is terrifying. The market people have advertised all over East Anglia and now we can hardly get out of our front doors. One day there were 14 coaches in our tiny village, which is only a few

593
hundred yards long. It is occupied by residents—it is not all shops. I believe that 90 per cent. of the residents are horrified about this and some I know are absolutely miserable.
On Sunday, people came from far and wide to the old church at Dedham for the 11 o'clock service; but they no longer come to the village, because they cannot find a parking space anywhere near. This is not a religious or a legal point of view; it is an environmental point of view. I just pray that local authorities will have some authority to stop the kind of nonsense which has gone on in my village.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and indeed, to some extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have slightly widened this amendment, although the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was suggesting that perhaps it would be appropriate to discuss the other planning provisions in connection with other amendments. I shall confine my remarks to those concerned with the planning considerations which form the meat of the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
The essence of it is to allow local planning authorities power to regulate shops opening on a Sunday through the mechanism of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I believe that this is an inappropriate suggestion because that Act deals with planning land use in the public interest, based on material considerations such as problems of the environment, of traffic, of noise and of disturbance. No one seriously expects Sunday to be as busy a shopping day as Saturday, when all these problems are far greater, and for which planning permission already exists. It would not be correct for a planning authority to refuse planning permission for a site because of environmental problems when it has already granted planning permission for the same site at times when those same environmental problems are far worse. There seems to be a lack of logic in that and indeed my noble friend Lord Colville pointed towards it.
By shifting some of the burden away from Saturday Sunday trading is regarded as beneficial in trading terms. The Government certainly appreciate the concerns that are expressed on many aspects of the Bill—whether they be religious, social or whatever—but the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would not allow these considerations to be taken into account when the local planning authority decides on an application for Sunday opening. It would be concerned merely with the problems which I described earlier.
The granting of planning permission is a lengthy process, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, so graphically explained. It can be expected that many shops will apply for planning permission even though they have no immediate intention of opening on a Sunday—or perhaps if they foresee opening on one or two days before Christmas. I do not think it is practical to suggest that local authorities should be asked to accept this burden. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord intends his amendment to have the effect, which, so far as I can tell, it will have, that if a shopkeeper wants to open his shop after the Act comes into effect, he will be able to
594
do so provided he already opens now. If earned, the amendment will encourage a wave of illegal opening as shopkeepers try to ensure that their position is made safe for the future.
One must consider the practical effect of this amendment. Is it really feasible to contemplate every shop in the country that wishes to open on Sundays, now or in the future, having to seek specific authority from the local council? Is it practicable for local authorities to undertake such a burden, and is it reasonable to expect a massive injection of resources for this purpose? Certainly that is the burden of the suggestion that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, put forward. At the end of the day, would not a fragmented local determination end up with a policy determined by the Secretary of State and established through a lengthy and expensive abundance of appeals? I believe very much that such would be the case.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the Auld Committee, which he said had disposed of this problem too quickly. The reason why the Auld Committee said that such a system would involve expensive, cumbrous and time-consuming legal machinery was that it would never be as simple as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, suggested. We really would be erecting the most amazing new and complicated machinery at local and national level. I do not believe that I can add to the words of both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Colville, with his vast experience of this subject, in setting the scene right.
Our policy is to reduce the burden on small businesses. The amendment would place an intolerable new burden upon shopkeepers and discriminate against those who had acted lawfully in favour of those who had not done so. The amendment would bring Sunday trading under a new system of regulations but one that the Government believe would not produce either an acceptable or a fair system. It would impose an intolerable burden on shopkeepers and local authorities. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Denning: I am afraid that my drafting may have been at fault. I did not mean to mix this up with planning applications or with planning law. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, we have all known a lot of those and do not wish to be mixed up in them. I really wanted to make it clear that the consent of the local authority should be an operative factor in deciding whether or not to give permission. As has well been expressed, the local authority is best placed to know what is happening in our countryside and, especially in representing the residents, whether or not there should be Sunday trading.
In view of the fact that the amendment has received very little support, I shall take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I believe that my objection as expressed in this amendment will be better served when we reach Amendment No. 5, which seeks to give the local authority the right to decide in this matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Davidson: I believe that we have now reached a suitable moment at which to take a break in the Committee's proceedings.
In moving that the House do now resume, I suggest that the Committee returns to its deliberations on the Bill at 8 o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Foods) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1985
7.14 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved. In moving this order I can assure noble Lords that although it concerns goods for sale, nowhere does the draft order say on which day of the week they should be sold.
The order would, if approved, amend detailed weights and measures provisions for the sale of food and drink contained in three statutory instruments that were approved by your Lordships' House in August 1984. Amendment is necessary from time to time to take account both of recent European Community legislation in this area and of developments in the market place. A first amending order was approved by your Lordships' House last June. The second order that we are now debating would further amend and redefine certain provisions.
Two amendments stem from EC legislation. First, the draft order would implement a recent council directive that expands the existing Community range of prescribed sizes of still table wine to bring in the larger sizes of 6, 9 and 10 litres. It also adds a small size, 18·7 centilitres, but with the proviso that it is for consumption on board ships and aircraft. That is to facilitate the use in the European Community of a "single serving" size, which is already popular in international travel.
Secondly, it would implement provisions in the EC food labelling directive that require foods that are not sold by weight or volume to be prepacked only if the number of items enclosed is either indicated on the container or is clearly visible and may easily be counted through the packaging.
Turning now to those aspects of the draft order that stem from domestic rather than European considerations, we have been asked to review the weights and measures provisions regulating sales of pies and flans filled with non-meat products to ensure that they are no more restrictive than those for their non-vegetarian counterparts. Articles 3(a) and 4(a) of the draft order would together achieve that aim by exempting those products from the weight marking requirements that currently apply and by applying instead the general provision that they should be sold by number.
Two further amendments proposed in the order would make it clear, first, that fresh fruits and vegetables that may be sold by number when whole may continue to be sold in that way when divided into portions; for example, half-cucumbers and pieces of melon; secondly, that single portion vending machine packs of beverages such as tea and coffee are not required to be marked with a statement of quantity, although such a statement would be required if the same product were to be packed for sale in the usual way.
The opportunity has also been taken, based on 15 months' experience of operating the 1984 orders, to improve and clarify the wording in two respects. The first amendment deals with multipacks; that is, collections of individually-wrapped goods offered for sale in a single container. The amendment would make it clear that the protection offered to consumers when goods are sold in multiples is no less than that provided when they are sold individually. Secondly, the transitional provisions in Article 16(3) and (4) of the Miscellaneous Foods Order are to apply to all food packaged in accordance with previous legislation, whether such food is to be sold by retail or otherwise.
The combined effect of the amendments proposed in the draft order would be to ease the burdens of complying with the law without reducing the effective protection which it affords to consumers. As such they have the support of consumers, traders and enforcement authorities. Finally, I am sure your Lordships will wish to know that this order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments but the committee did not draw the special attention of your Lordships' House to it. With that, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the substance of the draft order. We on this side of the House do not intend to oppose the order because it seems to be fairly straightforward. On the other hand, I should like to make one or two points of a relatively minor nature and of which the noble Lord might like to take account.
This order derives from the powers of the Secretary of State pursuant to the Weights and Measures Act 1963. In the preamble to the order, it is stated that the Secretary of State,
"has consulted with organisations appearing to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by this Order".
I wonder whether the organisations that the Secretary of State has consulted are the same as those considered to be representative in 1963 or whether time has moved on and there are other organisations that are perhaps now more representative than those valid at the time of the original primary legislation.
I have one further point to make in this respect. The whole question of consultation in regard to orders is one that sooner or later the Government might wish to examine. After all, techniques in market research have moved on since 1963 when the primary legislation was passed, and there are a multitude of ways not just of consulting the organisations which represent particular trades but of going further, behind that, and

597
obtaining views from a sample of traders themselves or the consumers. I offer those thoughts as a possible improvement on the method of consultation which the Government might wish to consider.
On the order itself, clearly EC directives must be put into our legislation and we have no problem with this. However, I am a little perplexed that the one glass measure of still table wine is to be available only on ships and aircraft. I do not understand why it is not to be available elsewhere, but I am sure there is a good reason and perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me on that point. I have no problem at all with the vegetarian versus non-vegetarian argument. Clearly something that is available to non-vegetarians should be available to vegetarians, and that seems to be perfectly sensible.
I have a further question and this relates to the single portion vending machine packs of beverages not marked with quantities. It seems to me to be not beyond the reach of technology to have quantities marked. There may be some reason why they should not, and I am sure the noble Lord will be able to explain.
My final point is that we on this side of the House welcome anything that eases the burden of compliance with regulations. Without intruding again on the debate taking place here on another matter—on either side of the debate we are now having, as it were—I would say that the job of shopkeepers, whether open on Sundays or only on weekdays, in complying with legislation is extremely difficult. The weights and measures authorities and the local authority inspectors have the duty of ensuring that legislation is complied with. It seems to me that there might be some merit in the Government's looking carefully over the next year or two to see whether such orders could be simplified. I am thinking particularly of shops which are run by people who, for all sorts of reasons, do not necessarily understand English as well as they might, for example, the ethnic minorities. Perhaps some method could be found of making this secondary legislation a little more understandable to the person trying to run, say, a corner shop in the middle of Birmingham on a Sunday morning and who finds such legislation difficult to understand. Having said that, I would add that we on this side of the House have no objection to the order and will not oppose it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his reception of the order. In reply to his question about consultation, may I say that time certainly has moved on since 1963, but the list of those thought most likely to assist in the drafting of legislation is kept constantly up to date. On these orders we consulted some 70 organisations representing manufacturers, importers, packers and retailers. Those representing the fruit and vegetable trade and pie manufacturers gave a particular welcome to the relevant provisions in the order. None of the trade interests consulted expressed opposition.
On the other side of the coin, we also consulted all the relevant consumer organisations; that is, the National Consumer Council, consumers in the European Community Group, the Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Protection
598
Council. None of those organisations voiced any concern at the proposals. So I believe that we have covered the ground fairly well.
On the second point, concerning the 18.7 litre size which is to be available on aircraft and ships—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, not 18.7 litres.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I meant centilitres. I see it is referred to as a single glass. Yes, indeed, this was agreed for use on forms of transport. I can tell the noble Lord that it is possible that proposals will be put forward in due course which will permit them to be sold generally, and if that happens we would agree; but at the moment there does not appear to be much demand for that size. I can assure the noble Lord that should such a demand materialise we will do our best to accommodate it. I am sure the noble Lord would rather have half a bottle and that is permitted—not that I am offering!
On the subject of the single size vending machine, again we consulted with all interested parties and we have had agreement from the consumer organisations that this is a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. They are designed to produce a drink of a desired taste. Apparently quantity is not relevant to the consumer. If the consumer knows he is going to get one cup he is satisfied with that—at least, that is what we are assured by the consumer organisations.
I take the point about making these orders more simple to understand, particularly for those shopkeepers belonging to the ethnic minorities of whom one sees so many these days. On the whole, I think that such orders make life easier rather than more difficult, but I take the point made by the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Oil Pollution Bill [H.L.]
7.26 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships are accustomed to long, somewhat involved and complex Bills—in fact, your Lordships are in the middle of discussing one at the present time—but in view of the proximity of Christmas and in an attempt to lighten the load and bring in something more seasonable I am presenting a Bill which is not long, complex or difficult to understand and the object of which is simple and clear cut. I believe it will commend itself to all noble Lords who are present at the moment and even to those who are otherwise engaged outside.
As I have said, this Bill is a very short one and at first sight it might appear to be somewhat technical. I suppose that one could say that it is rather technical, but the purpose is extremely simple. As well as being, in my view, necessary, I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is completely non-controversial. Perhaps I should begin by briefly explaining the background to the Bill. Under Section 2(1)(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 an offence was committed if any oil or mixture containing oil was

599
discharged from a ship into waters to which Section 2 applied. These waters were defined as, in the first place, the whole of the sea within the seaward limits of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, and, secondly, all other waters, including inland waters, which are within those limits and which are navigable by sea-going ships.
Section 2(1)(a) and (b) were repealed by the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Order 1983 as from 2nd October 1983. On that date a new system for preventing oil pollution of the sea came into force under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1983 which gave effect to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973. But that new system applied only to the sea. Since the international convention related only to the sea, the regulations which gave effect to it could not extend any further. The total repeal of Section 2(1)(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 therefore left a gap in the legislation to prevent oil pollution in relation to waters navigable by sea-going ships which do not form part of the sea.
The main purpose of this Bill is to fill the gap—I am not sure whether it is quite correct to talk of filling a gap in the sea, as the sea, by its very definition, does not have any gaps in it; but I think your Lordships will understand what I mean—by re-enacting in relation to those waters the provisions formerly contained in Sections 2(1)(a) and (b). These provisions are contained in the new subsection (2A) which the Bill inserts into Section 2 of the 1971 Act. The reason why it does not simply reinstate paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Section 2 is that the waters to which the re-enacted provisions will apply are not the same as those to which the other provisions of subsection (1) of the Section continue to apply.
The re-enactment of these provisions raises a problem which would indeed have arisen if the repeal of Sections 2(1)(a) and (b) of the 1971 Act had been expressly limited to those sections in their application to the "sea". It may surprise your Lordships, but there is no precise legal definition of what the sea is. Those of us who are laymen have a pretty good idea of what the sea is, but apparently legal draftsmen and others are not quite certain. Both the 1971 Act and the 1983 regulations define the expression as including any estuary or arm of the sea; but this does not enable one to determine precisely at what point in a navigable river "sea" ends and "other waters" start. In short, it is necessary for the Bill to prescribe a dividing line, to the landward of which the re-enacted provisions of the 1971 Act will operate and to the seaward of which the prevention of oil pollution will be enforced under the relevant provisions of the 1983 regulations.
It has been agreed by all concerned that the best solution to this problem is to adopt for the dividing line the base line from which the breadth of the United Kingdom's territorial sea is measured. This base line is prescribed by the Territorial Waters Order in Council 1964. In relation to bays, which is where the problem arises, the formula applied by the order is in some cases somewhat complicated, but the resulting base line seems to approximate to what would normally be regarded as the point in tidal waters and estuaries, such
600
as the Thames, where waters cease to be sea. In other words, I think I may say that commonsense has come to the rescue of those who are attempting to define this somewhat complex problem. I believe that this is the best that we can do.
Nevertheless, particularly having regard to the extended definition of "sea" in the 1983 regulations, which I have mentioned, it is likely that some waters of bays and estuaries landward of the base line for territorial waters might be held to be part of the sea for the purposes of the regulations. To avoid any overlap between the provisions of the regulations which prohibit the discharge of oil from ships into the sea and the provisions of the 1971 Act re-enacted by the Bill, subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill therefore in effect disapplies those provisions of the regulations in relation to any parts of the sea landward of the base line for territorial waters. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 makes clear that this application does not affect the prohibition in the regulations against discharging chemicals into the sea in harmful quantities or concentrations. I must apologise to your Lordships for using the word "disapplies". It is not, I must confess, a very attractive word, but it does appear to give in the clearest possible way the sense of what is meant.
Finally, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the new subsection (2B) which the Bill inserts in Section 2 of the 1971 Act. This enables the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations discharges into the sea—as for instance, in any parts of the sea landward of the base line for territorial waters—to which the provisions of the 1971 Act re-enacted in subsection (2A) are not to apply. It is intended that this power will be used to exempt from control certain discharges into the sea which may contain very small proportions of oil which are authorised by the 1983 regulations.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a beneficial Bill which essentially restores the status quo as regards the prevention of oil pollution by ships to navigable waters which do not form part of the sea. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Walston.)
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we welcome this Bill and I personally should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his very clear explanation of it. As he says, it is a fairly short Bill; nevertheless, I could wish that in it there was one other provision which I shall now propose to outline. I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken to look at the maximum fines which are imposed in the 1971 Act. Your Lordships will notice that there is a maximum fine of £50,000 for a number of the offences which are mentioned in that Act, including Section 2 which is the one that we are amending this evening. The sum of £50,000 would have been significant in 1971 when the Act was introduced, but of course much has happened since then and it is now not of very great consequence. For example, the after-tax profits of Esso in 1971 were £8 million and in 1984 they were £700 million. I am not suggesting that Esso would break any rules but your Lordships can see the order of magnitude that the fine would need to be now in order to keep pace with that increase.

601
I think that there is a case for linking fine levels to inflation. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in fact gave this point any consideration during the preparation of this Bill, or perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the Government have done anything or have thought about it at all and will be likely to introduce such a measure as an amendment. It seems to me that it would be a very useful amendment, which could be introduced now with very little bother. Certainly we have had proof in the last few years that controls of this sort have an effect on oil polluters and one needs to keep up the pressure.
There is also a need to examine the situation of offending foreign-flag vessels, where the prosecution is against the master of the vessel and where—in certain cases only—the fine is limited by the individual master's capacity to pay, though in practice the fine is paid by his company. It should be possible to prosecute the master as an agent of the company, and, again, to make fines more realistic.
With these two single wishes for an amendment, I should like to say that we welcome the Bill and hope that it will go quickly through all its stages. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is proposing to move it through, but it seems to me that the sooner it goes through the better. We support the Bill.
7.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for the clear and concise way in which he introduced the Bill, and I should like to record the Government's support for it. He said that the Bill was correcting a gap in the law. I would not argue with him, but there were mechanisms in the 1983 order through which action could have been taken, though I say at once that we support this piece of legislation because it is exactly what we should have incorporated in a merchant shipping Bill which we should have liked to introduce had time for legislation permitted; and so we are with him all the way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, mentioned a fine of £50,000. As she will appreciate, that is an exceptionally high figure for a magistrates' court to impose—and we are talking about magistrates' courts. In practice, the fines have not even reached a figure of £25,000, let along £50,000. There is a good reason for that. Apart from the action being taken in a magistrates' court, as she rightly pointed out, the court has to have regard to the personal means of the master. If there is to be a change in the fine, we shall have to consult my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is entirely for the noble Lord, Lord Walston, whether he wishes to pursue that. At this stage I certainly recommend that we take the Bill through as it is rather than complicate it further. I should prefer to see it on the statute book rather than for it to get hogged down on the matter of fines.
602
At this stage all that I can do is to wish the Bill a speedy passage through this House and through another place, and to give it our support.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl does not feel that he can press the matter of a fine. On a quick calculation, comparing the level of the fine with what is was, it should now be about £4 million, if £50,000 was correct in 1971. It is a serious matter. Magistrates' courts may not yet have seen fit to impose the maximum fine. Speaking as a magistrate, I can say that that often happens in a magistrates' court. But if the maximum is higher, the level of fines goes up. We must keep up the pressure, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will consider that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Baroness ended on that note, let me say that it is up to the noble Lord. But having encountered the problem of trying to change magistrates' court fines in earlier legislation, I can see problems, and I should hate that to delay the speedy progress of the Bill.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Earl for their reception of the Bill and for clearly showing that they have studied it, given it a great deal of thought and digested it. I have much sympathy with the attitude of the noble Baroness about fines. It is a matter to which I have given a great deal of thought, obviously in consultation with all those most concerned. I came to the conclusion, supported by the evidence that I received (as indeed the noble Earl has), that any alteration of fines would be far more complicated and lengthy than one might think for something that appears to be simple. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, once things get into the clutches of his department it takes a very long time to get them out again.
I came to the conclusion that it would be far better to present the Bill in its present simple form in the hope and expectation that it could pass through your Lordships' House rapidly, get on its way to another place and become law comfortably within this Session; whereas, had we attempted to do more, however desirable that might be, there was a risk that the Bill might be lost altogether. I hope that the noble Baroness is convinced by the arguments, which are not off-the-cuff but are the result of considerable thought. I therefore ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.45 until 8 p.m.]

Shops Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of restrictions on Sunday trading.
.—(1) For section 47 of the Shops Act 1950 (closing of shops on Sunday) there shall be substituted the following section—
"Closing of Shops on Sunday
47.—(1) Except as provided by subsections (2) and (3) of this section, every shop shall be closed for the serving of customers on Sunday.
(2) Where not more than five persons are employed (whether full-time or part-time) about the business of a shop, that shop may be open for the serving of customers between the hours of nine o'clock on Sunday morning and five o'clock on Sunday afternoon.
For the purposes of this subsection the spouse of the occupier of a shop shall not be treated as employed about the business of that shop.
(3) A shop may be opened for the serving of customers on Sunday for any transaction mentioned in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State may amend Schedule 5 by regulation by way of statutory instrument.
(5) A regulation under this Act by way of statutory instrument may be annulled by resolution of either House of Parliament.
(2) For section 59 of that Act (offences) there shall be substituted the following section—
"Offences connected with Sunday trading
59. In the case of any contravention of any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, the occupier of the shop shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10,000."
(3) For Schedule 5 to that Act (exempted transactions) there shall be substituted the following Schedule—
"FIFTH SCHEDULE
TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF WHICH A SHOP MAY BE OPEN ON SUNDAY UNDER SECTION 47 OF THIS ACT
The sale of—

(a) newspapers and magazines;

(b) meals or refreshments whether or not for consumption at the shop at which they are sold;

(c) petrol, oil lubricants and spare parts for cars and motor cycles at petrol filling stations together with table water, sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery and ice-cream sold on those premises;

(d) goods at any shop at such airports, main line railway or omnibus stations, passenger ferry seaports or motorway service stations as may be approved by the Secretary of State:

(e) goods required for any game or sport at any premises or place where that game or sport is played or carried on;

(f) goods at, or within the curtilage of, any place of religious worship, or any museum or gallery under the control of a public authority;

(g) medicines and medical and surgical appliances and toiletries—

(i) at any premises registered under section 75 of the Medicines Act 1968;

(ii) by any person who has entered into a contract with an Area Health Authority for the supply of drugs and appliances:

(h) goods at any premises or place used primarily for the sale of plants and requisites for gardening;

(i) goods required for the purpose of enabling the occupier of any premises to maintain or improve those premises himself." ").

The right reverend Prelate said: In this amendment I aim at providing a workable compromise between those who are committed to total deregulation and those who oppose that and want some degree of reform. I go quite a long way, I believe, to meet those who are in favour of the Bill as it stands. The amendment provides, in effect, for total deregulation
604
for small shops and then goes on to extend the schedule. I should like briefly to sum up the amendment by saying, first, that it provides that small shops shall be allowed to open unrestrictedly and to sell what they like. It is for this reason that the Fifth Schedule as revised in the amendment is shorter than that of other amendments because anything can be sold in the small shop. Secondly, the amendment provides for a revision of the present schedule to the present Act to allow for certain additional sales that are suitable to the present day. Thirdly, it provides for the revision of the schedule by regulation. Lastly, it aims at helping in the matter of enforcement.
In effect the amendment has two legs. One is directed towards sales in small shops, unrestricted in both opening and what they can sell. Then, there is a revised schedule for the others. The vast majority of the Christian community and a great many other people, as we on these Benches have been made only too well aware, are opposed to the total deregulation by statute of trading on Sundays. But the schedule of exceptions to the 1950 Act has been found to give rise to difficulties. Any assistance that can be given in this respect to local authorities and their enforcement officers should be given. The rationale for the 1950 Schedule 5 was twofold. It incorporated some traditional exemptions, for example, for well-established markets and some exceptions justified on the basis of need, mostly for the travelling public and the sick. These exceptions cannot be regarded other than with complete understanding.
The amendment in my name seeks to meet the public's needs more simply than did the 1950 schedule and with more flexibility. As to the simplicity of the amendment, one of the problems of the 1950 schedule was the lack of logic behind the particular lines drawn in the schedule. The schedule was necessary because the Act, apart from the schedule, totally restricted trading on Sunday. This amendment takes some of the weight away from the schedule by proposing new Section 47 (1) and (2) in a retained Part IV of the 1950 Act. It does so in order to maintain a general restriction but also to give general exemption, namely, for the small shops.
If regard is to be had to the kind of need that the public encounters on Sunday, especially that for food and goods connected with travelling, most of the need can currently be supplied by small shops. If we are a nation of shopkeepers, we have, for most of our history, been one of small shopkeepers. The small shop is usually a neighbourhood shop, often selling a broad range of necessities and commonly within walking distance of the 40 per cent. of households without regular access to a car, people who are old and those tied by young families. The Auld Committee's report reminds us that such shops are under pressure from competition by larger shops in town centres. Their passing in towns or country villages, as I know only too well from my time in Cornwall, would be a considerable loss to just those most vulnerable sections of the population that I have mentioned.
When we consider questions of need, as I propose in the amendment, there is much to be said for discrimination, if discrimination is unavoidable, in favour of the smaller shop. Balancing a community's dual needs for rest, quiet and relaxation on one day in the week—I

605
shall not develop that point because I have spoken about it twice already—and for access seven days a week to the necessities of life (I refer to food and medicine in particular), it is possible to justify general relaxation in the way proposed, namely, an overall restriction on trading for six days only but a total relaxation for the small and usually local shop.
In my definition of small, I have adopted not the measure of floor space or turnover but the more accessible one of staff size. The returns of employment are already made for national insurance purposes. It would seem that the minimum fuss would be created by requiring shops wishing to trade on Sundays under the definition of smallness to forward copies of those returns to the trading laws enforcement authorities. I know that I have spoken about this previously. I believe that too much has been made of the complexity of any kind of restriction and of the difficulty of enforcement. As I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech, frankly, all the arguments that I have heard on that basis could equally well be applied to income tax. I have not heard a squeak from the Government suggesting that because it has to be highly complex and complicated, and because it cannot always be enforced, we should abolish it overnight.
Given the problems of regulating, in the interests of peace and quiet, such a common human activity as buying in order to eat or drink or obtain remedies for ailments, this proposal offers as simple a condition as possible and goes a long way to meet the kinds of needs that the public expresses so far as can be observed in present conditions. So much, then, for simplicity—a total deregulation of small shops: anything can be sold.
I also spoke of flexibility. It is a commonplace of social comment that yesterday's luxuries become today's necessities. The question of need is susceptible of much special pleading. But some things are surely quite clear. When working hours during the normal working week including overtime hours remain fairly high and to them increasingly there has to be added the necessary journey to work and travelling time, the weekend—Saturday and Sunday—becomes a precious time for active leisure pursuits and for a range of activities that are not quite necessary but are not by contrast sheer pleasure. I am thinking of the necessary maintenance or desirable improvement activities in homes and gardens. I should perhaps declare an interest and say that I regard these as sheer pleasure. I enjoy do-it-yourself immensely. It is my one great relaxation.
Nevertheless, my particular interest apart, many must have noticed the importance that the public now attaches to travelling on Sundays, to visiting leisure centres, stately homes, great castles, cathedrals, and to acquiring garden materials and do-it-yourself goods. Hence, the goods within paragraphs (h) and (i) of the revised fifth schedule that I propose in my new subsection (3) would be saleable on Sunday by any size of shop, not just a small shop
Taken together, the two proposals, to permit small shops to open to sell anything and to permit shops of any size trading in the range of scheduled goods to open, mean that a great deal of flexibility would be offered to the general public to purchase on Sunday
606
that which it needs without unduly cutting into the difference that makes Sunday special. They also preserve to a high degree the character of a social institution which most of the nation would wish to keep special.
May I interpose in respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said about the former debate? I did not say that the Bill as it stands would make Sunday a day in no way different from others. I said that the people at large would take the passing of the Bill in its present form as a signal that Sunday was no different from any other day. I said that in the context of my former remarks, that the effects of liberalising legislation are very seldom, if ever, what the sponsors intend them to be. It is in that context that I made those remarks.
One of the problems of the 1950 schedule was that however ingeniously it was drawn up in 1950, it rapidly became dated. Many of the Bills which have been before this House and the other House since 1950 have sought to vary the terms of that schedule. My proposal is that the statute is not the practical way in which to draw lines in a matter such as this but rather that use may be made of new powers given to the Minister in my new subsection (4) to make amendments for the said schedule subject only to annulment by either House. In that way law is made which can respond to the changing needs of the nation and can be capable of great flexibility.
Much has been said already in the public debates about this matter of the difficulties of enforcement. Much of what has been said has been, I fear, of a somewhat tendentious nature. It is known that where there has been a will to enforce the law local authorities have usually been able to find a way. But their will has been sapped by the activities of that difficult customer—or in this case the trader—about whom we read often in history, the over-mighty subject. If in the past monarchs quaked in the presence of powerful barons, bishops or cardinals, so perhaps today local authorities are loth to act against mighty traders with huge capital resources and employment opportunities who flout the laws which other traders dutifully observe and who challenge the enforcement authorities to act against them.
The penalties available for local authorities under the 1950 Act have been so puny that sometimes they have shrunk from their duty to enforce them, not perhaps always realising that in public opinion, and in the opinion of other traders, they might have had the more useful weapon of a small fine available under the Act. Procedure by way of injunction has been all too rare.
Therefore I propose in my Section (2) that the penalty for infringement of the quite flexible provisions in my amendment be made considerably more substantial than at present knowing that the disparity of size between the smallest and the largest traders is such that the penalty which might bankrupt the one might represent only a few moments' trading profit for the other. The power of public opinion and the penalties available under injunction must cause even the mightiest trading subject to pause.
8.15 p.m.
I therefore offer this amendment standing in my name. It has been drafted without full access to the expertise which we on these Benches would like to have, and which I am sure the Minister has at his disposal. If my amendment is accepted, I am sure that some improvement in the drafting can be made at a later stage. But I hope that I shall carry the Minister with me in this attempt to do more justice to at least some of the various parties who are interested in this matter of trading on Sundays and who have often been identified—not least by the Auld Committee itself—the traders, their employees, the customers, and residents of areas adjacent to high streets and main shopping roads. I hope that this amendment represents an honest and genuine attempt to provide that freedom—of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, spoke—which is both for those who wish to keep Sunday in the pattern of Sunday as today, and those who want to be free to shop on Sunday.
In this hope that the Bill can be improved, I beg to move this amendment standing in my name, and I would refer before I sit down to other amendments which are consequent upon this. I do not wish to comment upon them at the moment. They are Amendment Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 41.
Amendment No. 38: Schedule 3, page 8, line 40, column 3, leave out ("Part IV") and insert—

"Sections 48, 49, 51 and 52. In section 58(a) the words "Section 52 and"."

Amendment No. 39: Page 8, line 50, leave out from ("aforesaid") to end of line 52.
Amendment No. 40: Page 9, line 5, column 3, leave out ("Schedules 4 to 7") and insert ("Schedules 4, 6 and 7.").
Amendment No. 41: Page 9, leave out lines 21 to 23.
Since they are clearly directly consequential I shall formally move them at the appropriate time. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have great pleasure and satisfaction in following the moving of this amendment so cogently and effectively moved by the right reverend Prelate.
This amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to deal with a number of the variations which are being proposed by the opponents of the Bill. As the mover of the Motion so rightly says, all of the amendments are designed to be improvements, but we recognise that all of them will be shown to have some problem or deficiency. Those supporters of the case to which I speak believe that none of the difficulties would be as great as the passage of the Bill unamended.
This amendment seeks to try to deal with a number of the arguments. Although the Minister will say—as he has said in Second Reading—that careful consideration has been given, the fact is that there are groups of people outside this House who, whether they are right or wrong, believe that the Minister has not listened or that the Auld Committee has not listened. They have made their case; and they are looking to the Government not to accept the Auld Report in toto. To be fair to the Minister he has not accepted the Auld Report in tow. He has accepted that there should be a free-for-all, but he has not accepted the recommend
608
dations about protecting the shopworkers. To be fair the Minister cannot be accused of accepting the Auld Report completely. He has been very selective. We are saying to the Minister: why not be a little more selective and listen to the people outside the House?
One of the biggest lobbies outside the House is those who represent the small traders. The Minister and every Member of this House will know the case that has been advanced for the small shops. Whether or not it is a part of the Sunday social scene that we would want, it is a fact that throughout our communities, not just in the town centres but in the suburbs, there are small shops, very often opened by members of the ethnic community. Part of their means of earning a living—yes, they will be breaking the law at the moment—is to open their shops of convenience in order to satisfy. What the representatives of the small shopkeeper have been saying—and I shall not bore the Committee in this debate but I have copies of letters from small shopkeepers—is that they have voted Conservative all their lives and they are shattered and disillusioned that their Government are treating them in this way. The collective organisations have said that they have submitted the evidence and there is no evidence that the Auld Committee took any notice of it. However, it is a fact that the small shopkeeper is at greater risk than any other category of shopkeeper if this Bill becomes law because the market place is a fierce area for competition. The name of the game is to retain and maximise your market share. There will be debates where we can show quite conclusively that the small butcher, baker, grocery shop, statistically and inevitably over the past 20 years, is declining.
It might be argued that that is nothing to do with this Bill. They tell us that if this Bill is passed the acceleration will be faster. But if the Minister wants a stronger argument than that he can refer to the Auld Report. The report tells us that if there is complete deregulation, the acceleration of the decline of the small shop will be hastened. So you pay your money and you pick the part of the Auld Report that you want. I ask the Minister to listen very carefully to what the Auld Committee has to say; he should not say that if the Bill becomes law, it will not damage the small shopkeeper. The small shopkeeper says so, the Auld Report says so, and all the evidence says so.
Five employees may not be the right figure; it may not even be the right way to define a small shop; it might be better to do so on profit, turnover or size. The Minister has the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to all those. I very much hope that we do not say "no" to every conceivable variation. Therefore, the validity of that part of this amendment which talks in terms of a small shopkeeper (who is defined as someone who employs five people) being allowed to open is apparent.
Secondly, that will keep the big shops closed. The Minister might say that that is not our purpose. It is our purpose. It is the purpose of those opposed to the Bill to try to make it impossible or not worthwhile for the large trader to say that he is now legally entitled to open. The legally-entitled shop should be the small shop. Many big shops recognise, and are not too disturbed by, the fact that the small shop will be retained. They do not shed crocodile tears. They do not speak with their tongues in their cheeks. They

609
genuinely recognise that there is a place for the small, convenient store or shop in many areas. Therefore the case for the small shop will be made in other places. I simply refer to it.
No doubt fun will be made about the schedule. We shall be told that as soon as the ink is dry on this revision there will be anomalies. That is the way of the world. After 30 years of legislation the 1950 Act was a consolidation Act. Now, 35 years later, of course there are aspects of the social scene which were not present then. It is certain that in five years' time there will be others. The right reverend Prelate has put forward a new device to bring the schedule up to date. Who says that the present law is being widely disregarded? There is no evidence as such for that; there are statements, phrases and general understandings. I have here a document from the Jubilee Centre and its evidence is as valid as that from elsewhere. It is capable of being criticised in the same way as the evidence of anyone else. It says that the only evidence available from 1,200 shops in 44 town centres in England and Wales—I stress town centres—shows that, far from being widely disregarded as the Auld Committee claims, the Shops Act 1950 is almost universally adhered to, with only 8 per cent. of shops open and 2·1 per cent. of shops flagrantly breaking the law. If 2 per cent. of the shops in town centres are held to be widely disregarding the law, that is fine; but most people are law-abiding. Certainly this Government are law-abiding and want their laws to be preserved. Only 2 per cent. of shops in town centres are disregarding the law.
There may certainly be pressure from those who tend to trade on the edge of towns, whether it be a do-it-yourself store, garden centre or, increasingly, the large hypermarket. There are other arguments in relation to edge-of-town trade and they will be put forward at a later stage.
We must bear in mind that the amendment attempts to bring the current law up to date. There will be those who talk about the schedule as though it is not only a bad part of the Bill, but also a part which it is impossible for the British to observe. My noble friend Lord Jacques, in a very telling intervention, pointed out that the Government choose to say that Sweden is marvellous, but they do not want to know about Germany, France, Belgium or Denmark. I believe that the Committee would be interested in knowing what happens in those countries, which have control by way of a schedule setting out what can be sold and what can be open on a Sunday. Generally many of the shops in these countries are closed, but there are exemptions which are categorised and listed in a way which may be irksome but which is part of their general law. From time to time their general law may be changed. I do not suggest that the Minister is saying this, but it is a nonsense to say that it is impossible to apply to people in this country that which has been applied successfully in other countries.
I also wish to raise the question of enforceability. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is in his place, as he always is on these matters. He will speak with authority on behalf of the Association of District Councils. We know the extent to which over the years the members of that association have sought to maintain the law. On average they have spent £27
610
a week to enforce the Sunday trading laws. Arguments will be advanced about the difficulty of obtaining enforcement officers and the problems of restraints. The law has been brought into disrepute for other reasons. It is not that it is impossible to enforce the law; as the enforcement officers have said, whenever they have the support and resources, the law can be enforced.
I have here a document from the Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Acts Administration. These people comprise the enforcement officers, and they have produced a 1985 Bill to which they have attached a schedule. That schedule is not very different from the schedule in this amendment. If one wants to say that the Auld Report was right and the inspectors are wrong, one is entitled to do so; but one is not entitled to say that it is impossible to devise in 1985 a schedule which at least has the semblance of a prospect of being sensibly applied, provided that local authorities are given the resources to do so. I shall speak on the schedule when we come to a later amendment
I hope the Minister will understand that this amendment is a genuine attempt to see whether or not there is any ground upon which the Government are prepared to say, "You may not have it right, but we will think again". No one wishes needlessly to press matters to a vote, but they will be pressed if the Minister persists in giving us no hope in relation to any of the amendments that we are moving tonight. We intend to provide the Minister with every opportunity to examine any variation in the general theme that the Bill as at present drafted is capable of being improved, provided he listens to those outside the House and, more importantly, provided he listens to what the Auld Report says.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I take this clause as it stands and I have the gravest doubts about it. Throughout my attitude has been that of the Gowers Report of 1947, which was disregarded. They said that now it is the public's turn for consideration. That is borne out today by the Consumers' Association. Consumers had no organisation for years. One was brought into existence to speak for them, not by a front organisation of the Chicago School of Economics but organised by the wife of a Labour Cabinet Minister. Even today, when it is maintaining the same note, it is so little dominated by Right ideology that in its latest and valuable world survey of wine it significantly omits South Africa, which is a major producer of wine, and of quality wine. When the Consumers' Association tells me that there is a demand, I demur slightly when I hear it said (as I heard it said over and over again on Second Reading) that there is no demand for this Bill from any quarter, that there is no consumer demand for this Bill. That is my starting point.
We all, I think, favour the continuation of the small shop. I myself hope to see the churchgoers in my village shopping at the village shop after they leave church, as we heard on Second Reading is the habit in Scotland. But in my respectful submission it is wrong to try to influence the market artificially in favour of one size of shop or another, irrespective of the service it gives to the consumer. In my lifetime we have seen a revolution in retail trading, and I see no reason at all

611
why the consumer should be denied the opportunity of taking advantage of that.
I do not myself doubt for a moment that in many respects our street-corner shops, whether you measure them by the number of employees, by the space or by the turnover, will provide a service that these great retailers who are now opening their stores on the outskirts of cities and towns cannot provide. But in so far as they cannot, why should the consumer, the customer, the ordinary citizen, be denied the advantage of the superior shopping he can get in the large shops if he thinks it is superior, if he finds the service better?
Apart from that, of course subsection (2) runs utterly counter to practically the whole of the argument we heard against this Bill on Second Reading. How many times did we hear about the mother of the family and the Sunday dinner? Our withers were wrung almost to the point of dislocation. But here under subsection (2) the hours are eight hours precisely in the sort of shop where the married woman is employed part-time, and the hours are 9 o'clock in the morning to 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
I speak with all deference here because I know that the noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Graham, know much more about this than I do, but my recollection is that it is in that type of shop that it is most difficult to give effective trade union protection to the employees. On the contrary, it is in the big shops, where they can employ a personnel manager and where USDAW is effectively organised, that there is the protection. It seems to me that subsection (2) of this new Section 47 is misconceived.
When one turns to the new Section 59 one finds that anybody breaking the law is regarded as a major criminal, and his offence is so heinous that the fine can go up to 10,000. But it is really when one comes to the schedule that one's misgivings are most borne out. The Auld Committee came to the conclusion—I must say that I came to the same conclusion—that it was virtually impossible to work out even today, even for this moment of time, an effective and workable schedule which was not anomalous.
There are some odd things about this schedule, considering that the draftsman had both the 1950 schedule and the Jubilee Trust attempt at improvement to go on. In the first place, intoxicating liquors are omitted. We have not been told why. Tobacco is omitted. I think it could justly be said that most tobacconists are small shopkeepers, but not all. Why should a large composite store be refused the right to sell tobacco? Both items are missing.
Then one comes to a matter which tries to meet a point that was put forward with considerable criticism, notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in her most entertaining winding-up speech when she denounced the Bench of Bishops for illegally trading in their cathedral shops. What do we find in paragraph (f) of the new schedule?
"goods at, or within the curtilage of, any place or religious worship".
The nearest place of that sort to your Lordships' Chamber is the Abbey Bookshop. I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate called in there on his way to the Chamber! Certainly it is a bookshop. It has an admirable selection of books, but not as good, not as
612
great, not as extensive, as the bookshop a little further down Victoria Street. Why should customers be limited to the limited stock in the Abbey Bookshop and denied the greater stock in the bookshop further down?
But it is not only books which are sold there. There are all sorts of souvenirs. Why should they be sold there and not in the souvenir shop a little further down? There is engraved glass, there are pottery figures—delightful goods. Do your Lordships not think that rival traders would intensely resent this sort of schedule? It is not good enough to say that it can be amended by regulation. It is what is devised to be right at this moment. It will go out from Parliament, if this amendment is carried, to the intense resentment of rival shopkeepers and of consumers.
There is only one other matter that I want to mention perhaps before I leave the
"goods … within the curtilage of, any place of religious worship".
I have not been home for some time but York Minster has a cathedral shop, a Minster shop, which leads right out of the fabric. It sells all sorts of souvenir goods of great delight. But just opposite the Minster in Petergate is another souvenir shop and the overlap of goods, as far as I remember, is almost complete. Why should the Minster shop be allowed to sell on a Sunday and not their rival just opposite?
Then one comes to (i), the do-it-yourself goods:
"goods required."—
Required by whom?—
"for the purpose of enabling the occupier of any premises to maintain or improve those premises himself.".
That would include, I take it, the entire stock of any ironmonger. Is no ironmonger going to complain of this provision? We have in the town nearest to us where we shop in Yorkshire a big do-it-yourself emporium. They sell not only a wide range of goods, including every type of gardening goods, but also such fitments as kitchen fitments and bedroom fitments. If the right reverend Prelate were a handyman, he could shop there and could equip his episcopal palace. Why should they be able to sell them?
The Lord Bishop of London: I cannot resist pointing out that not since 1973 has the Bishop of London been allowed to live in Fulham Palace. He lives in a modest house not far from here.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I must apologise to the right reverend Prelate. I did not catch that; but I shall read tomorrow in Hansard what he said and I shall no doubt feel suitably rebuked. Again I come back to what I was saying. A modern do-it-yourself shop could virtually equip a house. Why should they be able to sell and not the builder's merchant who sells retail a little more centrally in the town?
I do not say this merely in a destructive spirit, as I hope I indicated on the first amendment. Those of us who support this Bill do it on profound ideological convictions and in a desire that the consumer, the customer, the ordinary citizen, should at last have a look in. But, surely, when one examines the schedule—and it can be much more closely and destructively examined—does it not show that the Auld Committee were absolutely right when they said

613
that it was impossible to proceed on these lines without anomalies and without inviting further derision and flouting of the law.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, spoke earlier on another amendment, he was kind enough to quote something that I said at Second Reading: that here is an evident case, which we on this Bench recognise, for the reform of the Act. I hope that, with amendments, this Bill will meet this need. I hope that your Lordships' House may think that this amendment is one way of meeting this need. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked whether this is the right way of defining small shops. At any rate, it is a fairly easily verifiable way.
The noble Lord, Lord Simon, has the gravest of reservations about this amendment. He thinks that it is the public's turn for consideration and he does not think that they will get it under this amendment. It might seem, however, that, unamended, it is the turn of big business for consideration rather than the public, because it is big business which will swallow up the small shops. While it is true that many in your Lordships' House mentioned opinion polls in the Second Reading debate to show that there was not a great consumer demand for Sunday trading, they did this, I would submit, on the basis of the evidence, of the evidence that Members in another place have found and which has been found in opinion polls.
Consumers may require consideration not merely as consumers but also as human beings who live in the local environment. I should perhaps point out that I am sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London when, as I hope he will, he comes to move his later amendment about the fine being increased to £10,000, will say that this is in order that the big shops can feel it, whereas the present fine is merely a pinprick; and that he does not mean that in every case this is regarded as a serious criminal offence.
What I think is interesting about this amendment is that it does not seem to me to come under criticism from the Auld Report. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I read part of a paragraph, paragraph 204 from the Auld Report, dealing with the objections which that three-person committee saw to small shops and the small shop exemption. It reads:
"In particular, the restriction of Sunday opening to small shops would not begin to meet the demand for Sunday trading by the big DIY stores and garden centres. If, as we believe, these stores and centres have an established and useful trading role on Sunday, it would be wrong to prevent their opening on that day. If no special exemptions were made, at least for DIY stores and garden centres, there would be a public outcry and consequent pressure on them to trade illegally. Proper enforcement would be unpopular and the costs high."
So your Lordships can see that the objection of the Auld Committee to the small shops is that it does not exempt the garden centres and it does not exempt the DIY centres. But in this amendment they are so exempted. The Auld Committee Report writes:
"Proper enforcement would be unpopular and the cost high".
That is true at the moment. But if this amendment were to secure the approval of your Lordships' House, they would be exempted.
614
I think it is also interesting to examine this amendment against the factors which have been mentioned and which ought to be borne in mind in connection with Sunday trading. In the first place, if this amendment were to gain approval, the character of Sunday would remain pretty well unchanged. Now I know that there are those in your Lordships' House who think that it would be unchanged anyhow if the Bill were left unamended. But many of us do not agree with that. We think that gradually the character of Sunday as a day of rest and recreation would become greatly changed. Young people in great numbers would not be required to do Sunday jobs as well as Saturday jobs if this amendment were approved.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, mentioned mothers and Sunday lunch. He reminded us of how our withers were wrung. Indeed, my withers are wrung. I get quite a lot of letters from mothers who ask what is going to happen. I had one last week, one with a 13-year old son, asking what is going to happen to him if she has to go out. If this amendment were passed, mothers in large numbers would not be required to work on Sundays in retail shops; and they would be likely to come from the locality because that is the case with most small shops. Necessities could be bought and other things customarily bought. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, last time said some harsh words to the Bishops about cathedral shops and I note that these have been taken up again today. In fact, I am informed that because the workers in these shops are voluntary, this is a grey area.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Would the right reverend Prelate allow me to intervene? When I went to examine the Abbey Bookshop last Thursday evening just as it was closing—in other words, at a time very close to today—I asked one of the assistants whether she was a volunteer or paid, and she told me that she was a paid assistant.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. I think it would be generally agreed that the bookshop outside Westminster Abbey is fairly unique. It is a different kind of shop, certainly, from the stall inside my own cathedral, which is certainly manned by volunteers. I think it is an exceptional case, though I am grateful that he raised it. As for shops which sell souvenirs, very few of them have more than five full-time or part-time employees. Under the amendment introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, those souvenir shops could be open for the whole of Sunday. Most of such shops are small shops.
I have already mentioned that DIY centres and garden centres would be able to open under the exemption and, because the list can be changed by regulation, as the right reverend Prelate said, these arrangements are flexible and anomalies can be changed. That is the virtue of having regulations. Furthermore, if we had this regulation we would not need that large infrastructure which would otherwise be needed to support full-time shopping everywhere: lorries, cars, buses, police, cleaners and so on. They would be needed only if the large stores opened on Sunday and, as I see it, it is the virtue of this amendment that they would not open.

615
Furthermore, the noble Lord the Minister in his Second Reading speech said a very great deal about the need to enforce the law. I am sure your Lordships would agree with him here, but if this amendment were introduced the law could easily be enforced. After all, is it not true that apart from DIY shops it is the small shops today that open illegally, but under the right reverend Prelate's amendment they would be allowed to open? There would be no question of enforcing the law with them because they would be acting legally. There would be comparatively few big shops to be monitored—not many shops indeed for which the enforcement officers would have to look out especially. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord, Graham, that they think this is perfectly manageable if some new Schedule 5 were introduced.
Furthermore—no one has yet mentioned this but I feel that I should—the Institute of Fiscal Studies spoke of 20,000 jobs which might be lost eventually and of costs increasing by up to 10 per cent. But if only small shops were to be opened, together with the exemptions in Schedule 5, there would not be that kind of loss of employment or that kind of increase in costs.
I, too, would like to invite the noble Lord the Minister to respond. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested, I hope he might show willingness to respond favourably to this amendment. Indeed, I would like to ask him, if he will not respond: why not? It does not offend against the Auld Report and he himself said—I commented on it at Second Reading but he did not reply; indeed, he did not reply at Second Reading so he had no opportunity of doing so—at col. 1065 on 2nd December 1985:
"These things cannot be allowed to continue as they are. The choice is clear: there must be either substantial deregulation or much harder enforcement of the law.".
I would not dissent from that statement. I cannot see that this amendment is in any way in contradiction to the statement made by the noble Lord the Minister. It does propose substantial deregulation and in such a way that the law can be easily enforced. It proposes it in a way which I should like to suggest does not harm the various categories of people about whom we in this Committee ought to be particularly concerned so as to ensure that their Sundays are not endangered.
Finally, in this connection I should like to comment about some wise words that were spoken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in connection with the Shops Bill 1956. I quote from Hansard, and I hope those who have been Whipped might like to know it. He said:
"Sunday trading is not a matter upon which a government should hold strong dogmatic views in either direction".
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London. In doing so, I very much regret that I am in complete opposition to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, with whom I am usually in complete agreement. But this is how it goes on these occasions. He used the term "ideology". On this occasion I think we must be opposed "ideologically".
The right reverend Prelate said about his amendment that perhaps the drafting was not perfect. Not being a draftsman I will not comment on that, but
616
the concept of the amendment is admirable. It covers four of the major areas which I think are very important in the context of this Bill. First of all, it deals with the small shops and I think the small shops can be divided into two categories. There is the small shop on the street corner or in the village, which is a convenience to the inhabitants who want their Sunday newspapers or tobacco or who may have forgotten to buy a loaf of bread or half a pound of butter, or whatever it may be. I think it is essential that we should make provision for that kind of consideration.
In that context I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that we are not really intruding very much in this area on the rights of working women or of mothers, because very often these shops are family shops and the family take it in turn to serve behind the counter or else they bring in someone to help for a couple of hours. So it does not really interfere very much with the family Sunday dinner. In any case, certainly in the summer months, the family Sunday dinner does not often exist because the family want to go off on a picnic and they take their meal with them and come back and have supper after a day out in the country or by the sea.
The day out in the country might involve the other kind of small shop: for instance, small shops such as the ones which open in the small town of Ilkley, very close to me, which cater for people wanting small gifts, souvenirs and things of that kind. These are things, together with purchases from sweet shops, which the tourists want. That is the need for which we have to cater in relation to the small shopkeeper.
9 p.m.
Again, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to some of the souvenir shops and to two shops in particular, one in Victoria Street and one just across from the Minster of York. I cannot comment on the situation in Victoria Street, but the small shop opposite the Minster in York is likely to be a shop with fewer than five sales people. Therefore, it would be covered by this amendment and there would be no unequal competition between the Minster and the local souvenir shop.
Secondly, the amendment covers the essential area of making medicines and so on available; it covers the area of public transport, and it covers the area of leisure activities. In the sense that it covers the area of leisure activities, I find this amendment more appealing than some of the other amendments which are less wide. It may not cover tobacco. I certainly have not noticed that, but perhaps it is because I am a non-smoker. It may not cover liquor. I must say that there is an omission. I cannot claim to be a nondrinker. But I am sure that is something that could easily be put right at Report stage, if not by a further amendment.
So I support this amendment. In addition to the points I have already made, I concur completely with what my noble friend Lord Graham has said about the small shopkeeper. There was no dubiety in the Auld Report about the fact that if we had the opening of the larger shops on a Sunday, that would assist the demise of the small shopkeeper. For all sorts of reasons it would be tragic if this country were to lose the corner shop and the village shop. They are an integral part of

617
our community and we must do all we possibly can to protect them.
In saying that I would point out that in all other areas of employment we are not talking about complete deregulation. We are leaving protection of employees in the sense of the Factories Act, and if we were to pass this Bill as it stands at the present time, shopworkers would have less protection than those who work in a factory and who are covered by the Factories Act. In particular, that applies to women and to young people. We are not talking about removing all regulations from offices, from transport or from licensed premises, so why should we talk about removing all regulations from shopworkers? This is something which is completely unacceptable and is out of keeping with our concept of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, although this amendment may need one or two little alterations to tidy it up, I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships and gain support.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I want to appeal to my friends on the Government Front Bench not only to listen, but to listen and hear. I want to remind them that there is a danger, which sometimes afflicts Conservative Governments, which is the idea: we are right and everybody else is wrong. As I remember, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur was not in this House when in 1972 the Conservative Government of that day drove through this House without one single amendment at any time—even an amendment to correct the English—a Bill to enable us to adhere to the Euopean Community in terms which have been a matter of controversy ever since and which were a disgrace to this House at that time. That was a classic and terrible example of absolutism which sometimes afflicts Conservative Governments. So I want first to ask them to listen very quietly and sympathetically to an appeal.
We have heard in the debate so far an immense amount of patter about deregulation as an end in itself. It reminds me of an African—I think he was in Tanganyika—who, when his country achieved independence, asked, "Does that mean we can now drive on both sides of the road at once?" That is the absolute nonsense of total deregulation.
I think it is worth reminding your Lordships of what was stated at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. He had acted as one of the assessors to this tiny, hand-picked committee to which some attention has been paid. He said:
"There is no majority, in my opinion, in favour of opening shops 24 hours a day seven days a week, which is what the Auld Committee are recommending"—
and he spoke with knowledge—
"and what the Government are proposing in the Bill before us tonight."—[Official Report, 2/12/85; col. 1124].
I am sure that my noble friends on the Front Bench would agree that their purpose is not to have all shops able to open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but that is the position to which they are committed in this Bill, subject to amendment. I believe that they must listen to amendments and I am sure they will, not least because on Second Reading we were given the word "substantial" as a sort of qualification for accepting this Bill.
618
We have also been made to listen, not once but many times, to a great story about the impossibility of enforcement. I dare not weary your Lordships' Committee with points that I would have made on Second Reading had they not already been made by the 25 speakers before my name was reached. But the fact is that the people whose job it is to enforce have said, over and over again, that they could do so if they were properly supported by their local authorities.
We have also been told that the anomalies are so strange that they cannot be put right, but a number of noble Lords have reminded us that in most of the countries of Europe there is some control and some restriction—in some cases very stringent restriction—on Sunday opening. With regard to Sweden, which is so often quoted, there is a movement there to restore controls.
I say those things by way of generalities, hoping and praying that the Government will listen to the seriousness of the appeal behind the amendment. It may be faultily drafted—all right, but there will be plenty of time to look at it again. I want the Government to say that they will have a good look at it and not force us into a Division. The amendment has support in many quarters of the Committee. It is an amendment which I shall call an amendment on behalf of small shops, and small shops are really dear to the hearts of noble Lords in all quarters of the Committee. It is generally agreed that the small shop, the corner shop, has a sociological function in that it caters for felt needs, actual needs, and is used really for topping up. There are the DIY and garden centre extensions, which are slightly different. At any rate the small shop is dear to the hearts of your Lordships in all parts of the Committee, no matter what degree of fun the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, may make, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington earlier, may make about cathedral shops in particular places. The fact is that the big chains are in favour of this. Certainly they are against extensive Sunday opening. We know that the evidence of Lewis, Boots, Tesco and Marks and Spencer was in that direction when they gave evidence to the Auld Committee. This amendment makes an attempt to list reasonable articles for sale. One has to start somewhere. This is a reasonable attempt, but it can be changed and can be brought back at Report stage if necessary. Finally, the amendment includes proper provisions for the amendment of the schedule by parliamentary procedure.
This is a very reasonable amendment praying the Government not to be absolutist and not to be, if I may use an analogy about which I hope my Roman Catholic friends will not mind, too papal and pontifical about it—I offend the bishops, but never mind—not to be too papal, absolutist and infallible about it. A serious case has been made here from all quarters of the Committee and I appeal to my noble friend the Minister to give very sympathetic attention to it and at least to say that the Government will have a look at it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to speak briefly to this amendment and to reiterate what are people's main interests in this Bill. Their four priorities are: that the interests of small shopkeepers should be

619
represented; that their own interests as consumers and shoppers should be reflected; that the interests of shopworkers should also be safeguarded; and that the character of Sunday should not be completely changed. My noble friend Lord Graham has put the interests of the small shopkeeper very clearly, and on that there is nothing else to say.
I should like to stress a little the interest of the consumer, the shopper, the person who does the shopping. This was put very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, at Second Reading. I felt that he should know a great deal about the person who uses small shops in towns, villages and rural areas throughout the country. This is what the noble Lord said:
"Have the long-term effects on the consumer … been thought through?
"All this is fine for the mobile and the affluent, but what about the old, the poor, those with small children, no car or even no family car, who see their local shops permanently closing and the few which remain carrying fewer and fewer stock lines at higher and higher prices in order to survive? On balance, I believe that total deregulation is the easy route, but it is not the responsible route".—[Official Report, 2/12/85; col. 1135.]
I was very struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Vestey, said, because I felt he was in a strong position to know about the person who goes to small shops. Today is Monday and therefore yesterday, Sunday, is not long ago. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister is responsible in his family for doing the shopping, but I certainly am in my family. I wonder whether I ever would wish to shop for anything on a Sunday. Personally I do not particularly like shopping and therefore the thought of there being a day when I do not have to shop is one of pure delight for me. I would shop only for the items that are in the right reverend Prelate's schedule. I certainly would not be buying cigarettes. Many people have said that that omission is wrong. I believe that the omission of cigarettes from the right reverend Prelate's schedule is a very good thing.
Otherwise, I believe that most people think of Sunday shopping as being a matter of "topping up"; of buying a newspaper or buying aspirin. It is very much woven into the lives of people, to be able to make purchases on Sundays. That is an important aspect from the point of view of the person in the family who is responsible for shopping.
9.15 p.m.
Much has been said and withers have been mentioned. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn asked me where the withers of a person were. He even looked it up in the dictionary and now he knows. We know that they have been very much affected in this debate. Nevertheless, there are 1 million married women working in the retail trade. There is no doubt that under the amendment of the right reverend Prelate fewer married women would be involved in working on a Sunday. In subsection (2) the right reverend Prelate is really considering small families, where the mother or wife would be involved in Sunday trading. However, that is quite different from the mother who is taken away from her home and her children and who is moved into a large shop to work on Sundays. One cannot really compare the two.
620
Much has been said also about the character of Sunday. Again, that is very much protected by the right reverend Prelate's amendment and I will not amplify that point any more. In my view, the right reverend Prelate covers the four areas that appear to be of most concern to all the people to whom I have spoken and who have written to me about the subject of deregulation. Those are the interests of the small shopkeeper, the interests of the consumer, the interests of the shopworker, and the character of Sundays. Those considerations are dealt with very seriously by the amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has just said, there is therefore a very serious point to consider here.
Lord Stallard: I can quite readily agree with much of what has been said—particularly the remarks made by the mover and by the supporters of the amendment so far. I have no difficulty at all in aligning myself with the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in his remarks.
I was spurred into speaking again because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has once or twice referred to the fact that it is time for the demands of the people to be catered for. I feel that this is another example of where people who have not been consulted at all are being used to justify legislation that was not even in the Government's manifesto. There is no justification whatsoever for arguing that the public are demanding deregulation. There has been no test of the people's demands or opinions in the form of a referendum, vote, or election.
I am strengthened in that view by a reply that was given to a recent Written Question put by Mr. Dykes, who asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
"if he will set out the number of representations he has received from members of the public and interested parties for and against the shopping on Sundays proposals contained in the Shops Bill since the Bill was published".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/85; col. 309.]
The Secretary of State replied:
"We have received 6,664 representations opposed to the Shops Bill since its publication, and 24 in favour".
I would not say that such a response represents great public demand—and that was only a week or so ago. I fail to see from where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, gets his facts so far as public opinion is concerned.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: If the noble Lord will permit me, I expressly quoted the Consumers' Association.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful for that intervention because, again, the demands of the consumers are more in line with the amendment than is the point of view expressed by the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps I may quote again from the small Jubilee Centre brief. It is an excellent brief which, to me, certainly puts the case very clearly. It said:
"Consumers have expressed a demand for Sunday shopping. But it is a qualified demand. A careful look at the opinion polls carried out for the IFS (Institute of Fiscal Studies) shows that there is only a relatively narrow range of commodities for which consumers have expressed significant demand. These can be made available without total deregulation. All that is needed is rationalisation of the law, and some relaxation."

621
Again, I do not think that even that expression from the consumers points to a wholesale and widespread demand for total deregulation. I think that we should put people's minds at rest. I am not going to be too cynical and say what I think is the case, but we can all begin to see where the needs are coming from and the demand for this total deregulation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, commented on the conditions of shopworkers. I think we can safely say that they will be catered for and taken up at a later stage on further amendments to the Bill. Many of us will certainly have the rights and conditions of shopworkers very close at hand, from first-hand experience, and I do not think we shall let much go by in that respect.
The noble and learned Lord made some humorous remarks about the abbey shops and do-it-yourself shops. Again, I think they were replied to by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. He attempted, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, to make fun of the church shops—the repository-type shops as opposed to the stores. I do not think they even made any distinction between them but lumped them together to have some fun at the Church's expense. The reply is that most of those shops of course will employ five people or less, and this is catered for in the amendment.
As regards the noble and learned Lord's remarks about do-it-yourself, I failed to understand fully his qualifications about the ironmongers because DIY is not mentioned as such in the amendment. The amendment states:
"goods required for the purpose of enabling the occupier of any premises to maintain or improve those premises himself".
I take that to mean tools, drills, and all kinds of things that one can buy at an ironmonger's store. I could not see the noble and learned Lord objecting to that because he has not ruled out this amendment. Therefore, I do not find much substance in his contribution.
On the contrary, I feel that the amendment is a very attractive attempt to balance the whole situation and to tidy up the existing mess that everyone has criticised. Everyone agrees that it is a mess. The amendment is a genuine attempt to satisfy what demands there are for Sunday trading, to tidy up the existing rules and regulations applied to Sunday trading and to make it a more palatable option for the Government, if they are genuinely seeking a way to satisfy the needs as I have outlined them.
I should have thought that, as has been said, the Government would almost take this amendment as a special offer. It would give them the best of all worlds. The Government would be able to satisfy those to whom they pay lip service—the small shopkeepers. Certainly the amendment goes well out of its way to do justice to that section of the community which we should all like to see helped and maintained in the circumstances, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood rightly said. The small shopkeeper would benefit from this amendment.
Secondly, the Government would be able to allay some of the public fears on the social aspects, which we touched upon in an earlier amendment, and the local
622
authority difficulties that would emerge from total deregulation. To a large extent they are catered for in this amendment and I should have thought that that would also make it attractive to the Government.
Thirdly, I believe that it would please the big shops many of whom are being, it would seem, pushed into opening against their will. I well remember the previous debates in another place when this legislation was proposed many months ago, not years ago. The large shopkeepers and the big stores were not at all keen. We had briefs from many of the larger stores and retailers which were against this very Bill. I do not know what has happened in the meantime but their arguments are just as relevant now as they were then. Something else has happened to them. I am not going to suggest what that might be or give any hints. But having said that, I think that the Government should be quite happy to accept this amendment, and I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will be able to say that they have had second thoughts and will either bring forward an amendment of their own at Report stage or accept this one this evening.
Lord Denning: There is one lawyer, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who has spoken vigorously against the amendment. As another lawyer, I should like to say that I support it entirely and emphatically for all the reasons which have been given so well on both sides of the House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, doubted whether there was any consumer demand for freedom of opening on Sundays. Obviously this demand can only be conclusively demonstrated when an opportunity is given. Plainly, if there is no consumer demand appearing, then very few shops will open. They will open to meet consumer demand only when they are free to do so. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that it is quite wrong to say now, while present legal restrictions continue, that there is no consumer demand. Against that statement the Consumers' Association, which has already been quoted, speaks for consumers, in what I think is a very representative capacity. I have a letter from them, dated as recently as the 25th November, in which they emphatically state that they feel that the 1950 restrictions should be repealed. Until it has been demonstrated to the contrary that there is no consumer demand and that the Consumers' Association is wrong, I am inclined to suggest to your Lordships that we should take seriously what this responsible body says.
Does this present amendment, which we have been discussing for some time, seek to meet that demand? I am afraid the answer is that it does not. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale regards the Government as absolutist, and indeed he even used the word "papal", in proceeding with this legislation. I realise that, more than anything, the last adjective particularly would have upset the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who sits in front of me. But, again, is it a fair coment? If the Government were legislating to compel shops to open on Sundays, then it would be

623
a fair comment; but they are not doing anything of the sort. They are simply proposing to remove a restriction and to make opening a shop on a Sunday cease to be a breach of the criminal law.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Would my noble friend allow me to intervene?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: In a moment, with the greatest of pleasure, if I might just finish a sentence, when perhaps it will be more convenient. If it were proposed to compel shops to open, then that would be a perfectly fair comment. It is not; it is simply proposed to allow them to do so and that it should cease to be a breach of the criminal law if shops do so open. Now I shall happily give way.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I am much obliged to my noble friend. In rejecting the adjectives "absolutist" and "papal", which I used after some deliberation, perhaps the noble Lord will say that he will therefore join me in asking the Government to look very seriously at the amendments which have come up, be ready to study them and return on the Report stage if we do not press them now. I am sure that as much as anybody he is for liberty of conscience, freedom of discussion and freedom of thought. Perhaps, therefore, he will support my appeal to the Government to have a good look at this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If it were necessary to support such an appeal I should be happy to do so, but in fact one knows, as my noble friend knows perfectly well, that our noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lady Trumpington always look most carefully at amendments, and if they reject them it is because they think that, as in this particular case, the amendment is nonsense. And, with respect, this limitation to a shop manned or womaned by five people only is nonsense.
Why should there be that arbitrary limit? What about the small shop that is growing and developing? What about the one that is well run, successful and enterprising and therefore wants to take on more staff? The proprietor of that shop will know that if he takes on a sixth hand he will lose the right to open on Sundays. He may well be discouraged from so doing. But surely we want those shops to grow and develop, and above all we want them to offer more jobs in order to help the problem of unemployment.
To draw an arbitrary line calculated to discourage those who run shops from taking on additional labour seems not only unfair and arbitrary but to go right against those of us—and I think they are most of us on both sides of the House—who want to see more jobs provided and the total of unemployment reduced.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Does the noble Lord agree that the whole point of this is to show that there is a difference in character between Sunday trading and that which goes on in the rest of the week? The point that he is making about the growth of small businesses and the need to encourage them is much more applicable to what goes on in the rest of the trading week than what is proposed for a Sunday,
624
when the Government themselves, one gathers, have said that they do not wish to change the character of Sunday.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With great respect to the right reverend Prelate, I do not accept that argument at all. If a small shop is developing and expanding, when this Bill becomes law, as I hope that it will, it will seek to trade on Sunday and during the week. Is the right reverend Prelate suggesting that such a shop should restrict its employment to five people during the week in order not to forfeit the right to trade on Sundays? If he is, he is not only seeking to inhibit the growth of that enterprise; he is seeking to restrict the opportunities of giving employment. It is in the area of retail distribution and of the service industries generally that some of the best hopes of dealing with the problem of unemployment arise. I say to the right reverend Prelate, with enormous respect, that the suggestion that this is a way to make a distinction between Sunday and other trading is an extraordinarily dangerous and ill-considered argument to use.
I have only one other point and that is a rather light-hearted one about subsection (3)(f) of the amendment. Your Lordships will observe that the exceptions provided under the other letters of the alphabet are in respect of particular classes of goods, but in respect of goods sold in the curtilage of an establishment of religion there is no restriction at all. Under this amendment, provided that the shop or stall can be located on ecclesiastical premises, it is open to a person to sell anything in competition with other people who are restricted. I should never dream of accusing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London of a vested interest, but he may perhaps recall the story of the money changers in the temple.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but as, I think, the only member of these Benches who has been responsible for running a cathedral, I should like to say a word about the business of cathedral shops. I was not able to be at the Second Reading of the Bill but I have read the report of that debate and I noted the fun that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was having with the bishops on that occasion. I am tempted to reply in the same vein that bishops have next to no control over their own cathedrals.
I am obliged by the statutes to be present in my cathedral four times a year. On any other occasion I have to give a month's notice. But, as I say, having had the responsibility of running a cathedral, there is a serious point that I should like to make that has not been made in this connection.
Some members of the Committee may remember a debate that we had six or seven years ago on the English Tourist Board's report on cathedrals, when attention was drawn to the way in which our cathedrals and greater churches have become an enormously important element in the whole tourist industry in this country. More important than that, I would say, is the extent to which they have become and are becoming again great missionary and spiritual centres in the religious life of this country. Very large numbers of people come to cathedrals as visitors and

625
then find that they receive some spiritual message and blessing through that.
The state contributes nothing to the maintenance of these buildings. I can say from experience that the responsihiliity of having to keep in order a great cathedral, running its services and maintaining its choral foundation—our choral foundations are of great importance in the whole musical tradition and life of this country—is a constant anxiety. Cathedral shops are a small but nevertheless significant element in enabling cathedrals to provide this otherwise completely free service to the general public. That seems to me to put them in quite a distinct category from other shops. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, compared the cathedral shop in York Minster with the souvenir shop in Petergate. I would submit that what I have said suggests a very significant difference between the two.
In relation to what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, perhaps I may point out that no shop can be set up, certainly within the curtilage of a Church of England building, without the authority of the chancellor of the diocese, and it would be very carefully and strictly controlled.
Lord Norrie: In the Second Reading debate the opponents of the Bill did not establish to my mind any justification for opposing the basic principle. Whatever may have happened in the past, the right to retail, the right to serve customers and the right to shop on Sundays should be rights that any civilised society adopts. I still consider that this amendment is a wrecking amendment and is designed to be so. It removes the freedom of everyone to trade and to shop on Sundays.
In the same debate I made the point, like many of your Lordships, that attempts to tinker with the schedules of the present Act would be unworkable. It seems to me totally unacceptable that retailers should be permitted to trade for the whole of Sundays while others are prohibited altogether or allowed in part, depending on whichever permutation of the restricting amendments you take. Either we should all be free to open, or everyone should be closed—not just the shops but everyone, except absolutely essential services. As was proved by the defeat two weeks ago of the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, this House voted to support freedom of choice.
Let us consider some of the general aspects of the amendment—first, the question of employees. The limitation on the number of employees is unclear in the sense that it is uncertain whether this depends on the numbers employed just on a Sunday or throughout the rest of the week. Let us also consider the type of shop employing these people. It is likely to be focused
626
on a town-centre location. Therefore, there will be a demand for buses and parking. It is the worst possible amendment for those concerned about traffic and noise. The result will be bad tempered shoppers, queues at tills and staff under pressure kept to a minimum of five.
Let us consider Schedule 5 itself. I can perhaps, too, be forgiven for making the observation that in all the restrictive amendments the right reverend Prelates have looked after their places of religious worship or seen to it that they are looked after. I ask myself the question, why?—so books bought from a church shop on a Sunday would be permitted. But pity my noble friend Lord Arran, the humble director of a chain of book shops, who will continue to suffer under this and other amendments unless, in the case of this particular amendment, he can scrape by with an establishment of five or possibly six should his noble Countess be willing to operate an electronic till.
Let me concentrate now on my particular interests; namely, garden centres. At least some attempt has been made by the supporters of this amendment to understand what a garden centre consists of. But how does one ascertain whether premises are used primarily for the sale of plants and requisites for gardening? Is it by reference to sale area, stock on display, or value of sales? I have noticed that at certain times of the year garages clear their showrooms of cars and pack them with garden furniture and allied items; and their forecourts are thick with cut flowers and plants. Are they "filling stations" under Schedule 5(c), or are they places,
"used primarily for the sale of plants",
under paragraph (h)?
The opponents of this Bill do not seem to understand that retailing is a pliable function. It expands or contracts to meet market conditions. Similarly, it changes its composition and shape; and that is precisely why this attempt to curtail Sunday retailing will not succeed.
While I accept that some of the amendments contain provisions for amending the schedule by departmental decision, all require sanction of Parliament or can be annulled by Parliament. If we examine the history of the previous 30 years and the 19 attempts to reform the present law, it is not difficult to conclude that any ministerial attempt to widen the schedule will be fraught with political difficulties. It would be a brave Secretary of State who dared to alter it.
I have previously stated in the Second Reading debate that the present legislation in England and Wales is a compost heap of decomposing law. In my opinion not one of these tinkering amendments will arrest this process. I shall therefore vote against the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: We have had a long and carefully argued debate on this particular amendment. I have listened with great care to all those who have supported it; I have listened to the right reverend Prelate, who proposed it; and I have listened to those who have spoken against it. The one clear thing that I am left with in my mind is a question mark. What is the basis for the reforms relating to this amendment and the revisions of the present law as suggested by the right reverend Prelate? Perhaps they are to allow some liberalisation of the present law.
The right reverend Prelate was concerned about the nature of Sunday, and whether it would be altered. We have already pointed to the position in Scotland; but then we are told that Scotland is different and that a different pattern will emerge in England and Wales.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I would not have ventured to intervene on this purely English matter but for the fact that the noble Lord has mentioned Scotland. Does he know what is happening to Sunday in Scotland now? As a result of the changes that are taking place, with multiples opening on Sundays, the smaller and more localised shops are being forced to open as well. There is not all that much more money to be spent in the week and if someone is grabbing it, someone is losing it. The small shopkeeper is going out; and the nature of the Scottish Sunday is rapidly changing.
Lord Glenarthur: That may be the experience of the noble Lord, but I have lived there as well and I have taken careful note, certainly in my own local area—
Lord Ross of Marnock: When?
Lord Glenarthur: Last week—and I can assure the noble Lord that two weeks ago, when I went into Aberdeen on the Sunday morning, I counted the number of shops open, and there were very few indeed. There might be more at the moment because of Christmas; but if the noble Lord will allow me I should like to develop the argument which I was going to develop previously.
I was going to take an example in England and Wales. Shops in England and Wales are not prevented in law from opening on bank holidays, and, of course, some do. How many do now, I would ask? The answer is that it is very few indeed. It is clear that shopkeepers and shoppers wish to see bank holidays as special days, and special days indeed they are. Why, then, should not the judgment of the community be allowed to decide what the community wants on Sundays?
Is it for Parliament to say, "You may take your own decision in respect of a bank holiday but we shall decide for you in respect of Sundays"? That is very much the logic of what is being proposed when we talk
about the nature of Sunday being altered. We are all agreed that Sunday is a special day, but what is so offensive about shopping as opposed, for example, to the many other activities that can be legally carried out on a Sunday and which are not subject to the criminal law, which is the case if one is talking about an offence under the Shops Act?
628
The other point I must raise is the question of the law falling into disrepute, which was the theme of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I hope that no one is under any illusions about just how far the law on shop opening hours has fallen into disrepute. I believe that many people in this country just do not know what is legal and what is not. They may not know that when they shop late at night, at 9 o'clock or so, on the way home from work, the shop is trading illegally. I certainly did not know that until I picked up this Bill.
Most Members of this Committee know that it is illegal to sell a Bible on a Sunday and I shall not go down that road again; the public probably know it as well by now. They may not know that the corner shop and garden centre open on Sundays sell a whole range of prohibited goods. If the shops in tourist centres and holiday resorts are open for more than 18 Sundays a year, they are open illegally. I could go on at length. The point I want to make absolutely clear to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is that the law as it stands is being broken on an enormous scale, and the noble Lord should be under no illusions about that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the law is being broken on an enormous scale, the noble Lord must tackle the evidence from the Jubilee Centre, which said that in 44 town centres which they surveyed only 8 per cent. of the shops were open, and only 2 per cent. of those shops were trading illegally. If it is on an enormous scale, over the years what have the noble Lord and his colleagues done to enforce the law? Have they wished to reach the present position, or have they starved local authorities of resources and allowed them the excuse of the law being unenforceable?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord knows that it is the local authorities which should enforce this law in their areas. The noble Lord might be able to tell me just how popular those local authorities would be if they stopped half the shops opening in some parts of London, which he and I know well, which are open on a Sunday because the public want them to be open. They are not open because the shopkeepers specifically want to be open with no one around to shop; they are open because of public demands that they should be open.
By this amendment some further goods are indeed added to the schedule of permitted Sunday transactions, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, also said, adding rather ominously I thought that anomalies are the way of the world. For example, do-it-yourself goods are allowed; goods from garden centres are allowed; toiletries are allowed when bought from pharmacists' premises; and any goods from places of worship are allowed.
Yet there is also a move in the opposite direction. As we have heard, sales of tobacco and cigarettes are not to be allowed; spare parts for lorries and cycles are not to be allowed; and sales of fresh milk and fresh fruit and vegetables are generally not to be allowed, even though they have been permitted for many years. According to this amendment, even undertakers cannot carry out their trade on a Sunday.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: The noble Lord the Minister says that tobacco or liquor could not be sold. Was he referring to small shops or was he simply referring to large shops which employ more than six people?
Lord Glenarthur: I am referring to the effect of the right reverend Prelate's amendment, and the amendment is quite clear—it relates to shops where five people are concerned. However, it is the case that these goods are available elsewhere at present.
The Lord Bishop of London: I thought I made it clear in my speech that the small shops are not restricted in any way and that the schedule in the amendment applies only to those which have more than five employees.
Lord Glenarthur: Absolutely. The fact is that at present in shops where more than five people are employed it is perfectly legal to buy fresh milk and fresh fruit and vegetables. That is as it may be. We may at last he able to buy fish and chips in a fish and chip shop, but at what price? When we buy our Sunday newspaper we are to be allowed to buy cigarettes, which the noble Baroness, Lady EwartBiggs, agrees would be a good thing, and of course sweets, unless those who want them wait until after 9 in the morning and buy them in the village shop, or buy them at a garage. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, restrictions will not however apply to places of worship or areas within their curtilage, at which any item at all can be sold freely at any time.
I do not think it is fair to suggest that my noble friend Lady Trumpington, when she spoke at Second Reading, was just having fun at the Church's expense. She was simply pointing to some of the ridiculous anomalies which exist, and those anomalies hold good if we look at the amendment before us. It is difficult to see what principle is being applied here. This Bill is founded upon principle, and I can see no alternative but to meet it on principle, and that is not suitably dealt with by the right reverend Prelate's amendment.
Should we believe that sales of goods not in these revised schedules are somehow improper on a Sunday? Surely not, since we can buy any of them between nine in the morning and five in the evening in small shops. What then makes the sale of the same item at the same time at a larger shop so deeply offensive that a swingeing fine may be imposed? Indeed, a fine five times the maximum normally imposed on summary conviction. I cannot put that argument more forcefully than it was put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Another aim seems to be, as I think the right reverend Prelate indicated, to assist the small shopkeeper. It is a point touched on by other noble Lords. The Government do not believe that it is right to intervene in the market place in this way. To do so would discriminate against certain retailers and possibly to the detriment of their enterprise. Many small retailers wish to become large retailers, a point admirably brought out by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Is it right to inhibit them? I can think of no
630
sensible reasons for its being so. Nor do I believe it to be necessary.
It is true that the number of small shopkeepers has declined in all western countries since the last war, but in those countries where deregulation has occurred the small retailer has benefited. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, need look only as far as Sweden to realise that. On the question of Europe, perhaps I ought to say that Sweden is not the only country with no restrictions on Sunday trading. In the Republic of Ireland, Spain and Belgium shops are free to open on Sundays. Other countries are moving towards deregulation either by changes in their law or by traders and members of the public challenging the present regulations. Norway is an example of' the former and France of the latter. In other countries there are forms of regulation, but the move is very much away from it.
I have no doubt that our small shopkeepers too will seize the opportunity of deregulation and benefit from it. They do not need the protection that this amendment attempts to offer. I say "attempts" because I believe that the effect of the amendment would be to increase the burdens on the small shopkeeper, on his staff, and on local authorities. Many retail chains own large numbers of small shops which will be permitted to open.
Perhaps I may bring in a point here that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised when he spoke about keeping large shops closed. One thing he may not be aware of is that large stores such as Selfridge's may do overall what they already do in parts of their store, so that the whole store would become a series of boutiques. This situation exists in perfumery and fashion sections of various large stores. Each one of these boutiques certainly employs fewer than five people. But the large stores have to be open as a result and they seem to get round the very point that the right reverend Prelate is suggesting in this amendment.
The small trader who may only have one shop may have built that shop up until it is staffed by six, seven or eight people. His very success in building up his business will debar him from opening on a Sunday when the smaller branches of the chain stores may be open. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham quoted from paragraph 204 of the Auld Report. He quoted it correctly; but what he did not quote was the conclusion that they reached on the feasibility of exemption for small shops, in paragraph 207. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will read that because it says:
"We are therefore firmly of the view that positive discrimination in favour of small shops, either generally or solely in the food sector, would not work".
They came to that conclusion because they did not believe that the small shop exemption would work. Retailing is a competitive industry.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I apologise for intruding again on the noble Lord the Minister. I have read that last paragraph No. 207. It depends on the previous paragraph, No. 204, which I tried to explain is met by the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I wonder whether the noble

631
Lord the Minister would comment on that conclusion in the light of the way this amendment falls outside the criticism of paragraph 204.
Lord Glenarthur: I thought that one of the aims of the right reverend Prelate's amendment was to discriminate in favour of small shopkeepers because that is where he feels that less damage will be done to Sunday and more good will be done for the shopkeepers. But the fact is that the Auld Report clearly says:
"We are therefore firmly of the view that positive discrimination in favour of small shops, either generally or solely in the food sector, would not work".
That is the conclusion of the report. I cannot see that what I have said is in any sense at loggerheads with it.
Retailing is a competitive industry. Small retailers often cannot compete with the chains which have the advantages on pricing of bulk buying. Many have won a market share by providing better service—and better service means more staff. The small retailer with personal service will be debarred from opening by this amendment because he has more staff; but the chainstore of the same size and of the same range of goods, with self-service and with fewer staff, will be able to open.
What will the small retailer's solution be? To dismiss staff or not replace those leaving, thus increasing unemployment and making the work harder for those who remain? Or, since he and his spouse do not count as employees, should they work full-time every Sunday? This amendment adds to but also subtracts from what may be sold on Sundays, as I have said. It removes some anomalies and adds others which I have no doubt would occupy the courts for many years to come. It attempts to add one group of shopkeepers but fails to do so to the cost of other shopkeepers, shopworkers, local authorities and ratepayers. It allows all goods to be sold in some places which do not at present sell them but stops some of those shops at present selling them from continuing to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the demand for Sunday shopping. So did the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. It has been said by those who oppose this Bill that there is no real evidence of substantial demand for Sunday shopping. There is an implication in that that people who want to shop on Sundays are those who are too disorganised to fit in their shopping at other times. I shall not be drawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on the question of who does the shopping in my household.
Perhaps I may simply say this. Let us look at what people do and not just at what they say. The most recent survey that I have seen found that 61 per cent. of the general public do some shopping on Sunday. Some 26 per cent. reported that they went only to newsagents and off-licences, but 35 per cent. shopped in other shops. When nearly a third of the public are going into the shops on Sunday, many of which are illegally open, I really do not see how in any circumstances it can be seriously asserted that there is no demand. In the same survey it was found that in certain groups of people, notably married women and young people, nearly three-quarters are doing their
632
shopping on a Sunday. Surely the key to the whole issue here is that of consumer demand—again, a point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
10 p.m.
This amendment is one born of a feeling that some regulation of Sunday trading is necessary, but, as I said at the start, the system it creates is not based on any principle that the Government can accept. Why should it be permissible to sell magazines but not books, sweets at a garage but not food in a small shop only? There is a feeling that any regulation is better than no regulation, but it is based on no principle that stands up to the thorough scrutiny that not only the Auld Committee gave it; many times in your Lordships' Chamber and elsewhere this matter has been debated. I cannot agree that this question of principle that the right reverend Prelate seeks to introduce is a proper matter of principle. I believe this amendment would make the law on Sunday trading less logical. It would make it less fair, less acceptable and less understandable than it is now. On that basis I ask your Lordships to reject it.
The Lord Bishop of London: I must confess that I stand here very deeply disappointed, having heard the speech of the noble Lord the Minister. At the same time I must confess that I have had an answer to the question I have been asking myself for a very long time: what in fact is moving the Government forward? What motive is directing them in this particular Bill? I find that the answer has been given to me twice tonight. It is wrong to influence the market artificially. Now we know exactly why—it is simply economic forces.
I do not believe—and I think I speak for all those who sit behind me on these Benches—that the way to deal with our society, particularly in its present form, is simply to say, "You must let the market run its own course without any attempt to influence it at all".
I have spoken on many occasions about the relationship between production and wealth. Not long ago I was speaking to the Institute of Bankers in the City of London on the need to work to produce wealth, and I said that resources did not simply become available. I am not one who believes that there are somewhere unlimited resources that you can simply distribute. But equally I am not one who thinks that it is a sound principle to allow market forces unrestricted, not influenced artificially, to determine the right policies for our country.
I believe this debate has indicated that this is an issue of principle. Those of us, if I may say so, who are unable to accept this Bill and its total deregulation have really tried to co-operate and come up with a workable solution. Of course it was very easy to make merry with the schedule. I may add that one reason for the schedule is that I have always been taught that in this country it was a natural process of growth that took place in the law. We tried to build on what was there; we did not have sudden revolutionary changes. That is the reason.
But of course you can make merry with any schedule. I could have made merry with it; I could

633
have sung it here in the Chamber to an Anglican chant, if I had wanted to. That would have made you all laugh. Of course you can make merry. It is a cheap way of trying to secure a point which lies behind it. On the question of growth, of course, there will be a problem if a shop grows, but that applies throughout the whole of life. Do I stop earning because my tax threshold is going up to a higher rate? One can take endless examples of where, if one does a certain thing, one is charged more. If you move into a bigger house, you have to pay more insurance, and so on. That argument does not wash. It does not apply because it applies right through the whole of our lives. There are artificial cut-off points of one sort or another and we cannot use that an adequate reason.
On the question of demand, I do not think that argument holds water at all. Perhaps nobody knows the answer. However, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, criticised the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for saying that there was little demand and quoted evidence to that effect. But the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, had merely replied to repeated statements that there was great demand. Having criticised the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for saying that there was no demand, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the only way to discover the demand was by opening the shops. Evidently, he did not know what the demand was, so on what basis was he criticising the other noble Lord?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right reverend Prelate allow me to intervene? I think that he has slightly misunderstood my argument—I am sure genuinely. My argument was that there was a demand, but that a conclusive view of it, which would convince even the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, must await the actual experience.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that comment. But in that case why did he go on to say that one objection to my amendment was that it did not meet the demand, when he now admits that there is no conclusive evidence of what that demand is? I merely make these points to show that to talk about demand is irrelevant to this issue. It is fundamentally one of principle. I will not go on. There is a fundamental principle here which is simply, as has now been revealed: do we just let market forces have their say in this issue—we have tried to meet some of the needs—or are there more important considerations which must be taken into account, and of which we have tried to take account in this amendment? That, I believe, is the issue before us and I must leave it to the judgment of the Committee.
10.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Blease, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Brentford, V.

Birmingham, Bp. (Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

634

Buckmaster, V.

Moyne, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Nicol, B.

Cathcart, E.

Oram, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Coleraine, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Renton, L.

Croft, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Denning, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Galpern, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Gloucester, Bp.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grantchester, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Ingleby, V.

Stamp, L.

Jacques, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tonypandy, V.

Lincoln, Bp.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Manchester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Bauer, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boardman, L.

Manton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caccia, L.

Monson, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cowley, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Norrie, L.

Crathorne, L.

Northfield, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Rochdale, V.

De La Warr, E.

Romney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gainford, L.

Suffield, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vickers, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wardington, L.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimball, L.

Windlesham, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.15 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
"Amendment of Schedule 5 to Shops Act 1950
.—(1) Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950 is hereby amended by the deletion of paragraph 1 of that schedule and the substitution of the following paragraph:
1. The sale of:

(a) intoxicating liquors;

(b) meals or refreshments whether or not for consumption at the shop at which they are sold;

(c) timetables, stationery, greetings cards and postcards;

(d) sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery and ice cream;

(e) flowers, plants, shrubs (other than artificial) bulbs or seeds;

(f) food, drink and ingredients required for their preparation, before one o'clock in the afternoon at a shop where not more than three shop workers (as defined in Schedule 1 to the Shops Act 1986) are employed and on the premises at the same time;

(g) medical and surgical supplies;

(h) aircraft, motor, or cycle supplies or accessories;

(i) tobacco and smokers' requisites;

(j) newspapers, periodicals and magazines;

(k) books at railway stations, civil airports and church bookstalls;

(l) guide books and souvenirs—

(i) at any gallery, museum, garden, park or ancient monument under the control of a public authority or university; or

(ii) at any other gallery or museum, or any place of natural beauty or historic interest, or any zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, or aquarium, if and to the extent that the local authority certify that such sale is desirable in the interests of the public; or

(iii) in any passenger vessel within the meaning of Part II of the Finance (1909–1910) Act 1910, while engaged in carrying passengers;

(m) photographic film;

(n) requisites for any game or sport at any premises or place where that game or sport is played or carried on.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend paragraphs (a) to (n) of the foregoing subsection and may add further paragraphs to that subsection.
(3) No order shall be made under this section until a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Viscount said: This seems a late hour to be starting another debate. First, I ought to thank my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for his kind way out of our dilemma. Otherwise, there would have been no Amendment No. 4 to recommend to your Lordships.
This is a moderate amendment, and I should like to emphasise a point that has not been made so far today as to the reason why, while there should perhaps be some fairly substantial measure of restriction, such a restriction should not be total and complete. This point is made in the Auld Report where it deals with the effect that deregulation, if it is total and complete, will have on England and Wales.
At present, wages for working on Sunday are double the ordinary rate. On that basis, the Auld Report points out that there would not be an enormous amount of further Sunday opening. On the other hand, if wages are reduced from double to one and one-half times normal wage rates, then, because of the reduced extra cost, there will be very substantial Sunday opening. This is a point that your Lordships need to grasp.
There has already been a case in Scotland where it was held that one and one-third—or 130 per cent.—of the normal wage was perfectly adequate for working on Sunday. The increased wage for Sunday work may well be reduced as the years go by. The Auld Report
636
points out that if the rate is reduced to, say, 130 per cent., then 86·1 per cent. of food stores may well be open, and that 100 per cent. of some of the other types of stores may be.
That is a real danger, and it is why I personally am worried about total and complete deregulation. It is why I have proposed this amendment to tidy up the law. The amendment builds on history and does not sweep the history of Shops Acts away. It tidies up the present position, and it plans for the future. It makes two provisions for your Lordships' consideration. It provides for a new list of exempt goods. I am glad to be able to point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that intoxicating liquor and tobacco are included in that list—though I have no doubt that he will enjoy being able to pick holes in the list when his turn comes to speak, as he has done every time so far. Secondly, the amendment also enables the list to be kept up to date by an order without going to the enormous sweat of having a new Bill pass through both Houses of Parliament.
I believe that this amendment provides a moderate and sensible way forward. I say this for the following reasons. First, there are some items that must be able to be purchased on a Sunday and no one quarrels with that: petrol, milk, and so on, should continue to be able to be purchased on a Sunday. This amendment provides for that. Secondly, there are other items that cannot be purchased during the week. If one visits a stately home or a site where a guide book is necessary, or a local souvenir that is relevant to the place, the amendment provides for that. What is needed and cannot be purchased earlier must continue to be available for purchase on a Sunday. This amendment provides for that. Sunday newspapers clearly fall into that category because nobody can buy their Sunday newspaper on a Saturday. In fact, that is not totally true because I have bought Sunday newspapers on Saturday evening at an airport when leaving the country. As a general rule, however, it is not possible.
Thirdly, this amendment is enforceable. I will not read out yet again what the enforcement officers have said. There is no problem in enforcing this law provided that the local authorities agree to it. I should like to point out that at least two local authorities have endorsed this proposal, so it is not universal that local authorities are opposed to it. Certainly the costs which would be incurred by local authorities if this moderate amendment is accepted would be less than if widescale deregulation and widescale shop opening is permitted and local authorities have to provide the necessary subsidiary services.
Fourthly, I believe that the amendment marries up the interests of shopkeepers and shopworkers with those of residents in shopping areas. It ensures that peace and quiet can remain, as a whole, and that adequate goods are available for shoppers whatever the public demand may be; and there appear to be conflicting views on that. I personally have not found any great demand for this Sunday shopping but I am concerned for those who will be made to work on Sundays. One person who works in a chemist's shop said that if this Bill went through Parliament unamended, instead of working for an hour or two one

637
Sunday in three, she feared she would be made to work every Sunday and she was not at all looking forward to that. That is the view of the people who may be made to suffer.
I turn to the question of anomalies, which greatly worries my noble friend the Minister. I firmly believe—I said this on Second Reading and still maintain it—that if a balance is to be held between the conflicting interests of different parties there are bound to be anomalies. Our law as it stands in many spheres is full of anomalies. That does not worry me. I know that it worries my noble friend the Minister because he has said that to me time and again. I do not believe that that is a flaw in our law. I would dearly love to support this Bill, which is so tidy and so easy, because as a lawyer I like what is tidy and easy; but I cannot because of the way it will disastrously affect so many people. Therefore, I accept that there are anomalies. Those anomalies can be tidied up from time to time by order, but to be fair and just I believe we must have the amendment. Tidiness with injustice is not an acceptable combination.
I was then going on to refer to the practices of other countries. In his winding-up speech, after the debate on the previous occasion, the noble Lord the Minister referred to trends away from regulation. I am not aware of such trends. I have read that a majority report in Sweden recommended reintroducing regulation there because of some of the implications involved. I do not believe that Sweden, on which the Government have put so much emphasis, is all sweetness and light. Undoubtedly there are problems, but other countries have found it acceptable and beneficial to continue regulation, and I believe that this country should do so as well.
In conclusion, I would say that this is a moderate amendment. If it is acceptable, the schedule could be revised without too much of a problem now and at the next stage as well. I should like to point out that, if your Lordships felt it was right, the do-it-yourself chains, with their very powerful lobby, could be introduced to it. I consider that this is the best way of perpetuating the traditional liberties and distinctive way of life to which our Prime Minister and our party are dedicated, and I commend this amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Monson: This is really a somewhat extraordinary amendment. As I understand it, if it is agreed to it will be legal after 1 p.m. to sell gin but not the tonic to go with it, to sell rum but not the Coke, to sell the Famous Grouse, Bells or Teachers, but not the Highland Spring, Evian or Perrier. Under subsection 1(c) it will be permissible to sell timetables, stationery, greetings cards and postcoards—not postcards—which I take to be the string with which one ties up parcels.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: This is all good fun, but the noble Lord made reference to "after 1 o'clock". I wonder whether the noble Lord would point out where in the amendment 1 o'clock is referred to?
Lord Monson: Yes. I believe it is further down in paragraph 1(f). It would be permissible to sell sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery and ice cream—all the things which do harm to your teeth and your children's teeth; but to sell muesli, brown rice, cottage cheese, and all the things which it is alleged are good for you, would be a criminal offence if they were sold after 1 p.m. in a shop employing more than three shopworkers. The sale of Bibles would still constitute a criminal offence unless those Bibles were sold at railway stations, civil airports or church bookstalls; in contrast, pornographic magazines could be sold anywhere at any time. I really think that this amendment is crazy.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am sure that the noble Lord will not expect me to follow him down his crazy pavement. In fact, we are being invited in this amendment to take on board the criticisms which were made when we attempted to find a better law than the one we have by virtue of amending the schedule, and, as the Order Paper very often provides, there is a progression. The previous itemised schedule was criticised for its exclusion of certain matters. It so happens that this revised schedule includes those items which were ridiculed on the last occasion.
As noble Lords have so rightly pointed out, if in fact we wish to retain the raison d'être of our Sunday, then noble Lords ought not to say that all we are doing is affecting shopping, because shopping affects the whole raison d'être of Sunday. If we change the shopping pattern, then we shall also change a great many other things as well. We shall certainly change the social life of the people who live around the shopping centres.
I live in Edmonton. I know Edmonton and Enfield well. Thousands of people find life intolerable on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. People who know their business say that if the Bill is passed Sunday will become the second busiest day in the week. It will be busier than Thursday or Friday, and almost as busy as Saturday. That is the forecast. We are talking not merely about extending shopping hours but about extending the misery in which people live. Their houses are in the middle of a large car park.
10.30 p.m.
We want to bring sense to the nonsense of a schedule that has outlived its purpose. Time after time, day after day, we shall have to go back to the Auld Report. At paragraph 186 on page 42 it talks about revising the schedules. It begins:
"The most common suggestion for change in the machinery of regulation has been a revision of the Schedules of exempted transactions".
We are not flying a kite. The option suggested most to that committee was along the lines of a revised schedule.
Lord Glenarthur: I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he aware that paragraph 196 on the next page clearly says:
"In our view, therefore, revision of the Schedules would be, at best, tinkering with an unsatisfactory law"?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I was coming to that after paragraphs 187, 188, 189, 190, 191 and 192. I

639
wanted to begin the argument about revising the schedules where the report began it, and that was at paragraph 186. I can understand the Minister's desire to short-circuit a discussion on the schedule or the report by pointing to the conclusions, but, as he will know, this and other debates are not about the conclusions that the Auld Committee reached. The Minister and his colleagues rejected one of its major conclusions about the protection of shopworkers.
If I may make my case, the committee said that the majority of the evidence that it received pointed to revising the schedule. Paragraph 187 states:
"On the face of it, the idea of getting rid of the anomalies that have bedevilled the present law by revising the list of exemptions is attractive. But it is only necessary to think briefly about the drawing up of a new list of exemptions to see some of the practical difficulties that would arise".
Neither the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, nor I wish to mislead the Committee. There are difficulties in and problems about drawing up a revised list. We do not deny that.
I next draw the attention of your Lordships' Committee to paragraph 190:
"An alternative criterion would be 'demand'. Some, particularly USDAW and the TUC, have suggested that sales should be permitted only of those items for which there is an established public demand. Such a list might well include items of food, confectionery and alcohol, as well as items particularly related to weekend leisure pursuits. DIY, gardening goods and sports equipment".
Those were the recommendations by USDAW and the TUC. The co-operative movement—and I have previously declared my interest—wants at least to start to examine how to change the present law by putting forward a revised schedule of goods. By and large, that is contained in the list here.
Paragraph 190 goes on:
"The IFS, in its Report, comments on the difficulties of assessing likely consumer behaviour on the basis of opinion polls, because people find it difficult to predict how their shopping habits might change on the basis of hypothetical questions. We believe that 'demand', until tested by actual opening, would always remain a matter of informed guesswork".
I would not disagree. The opponents of the Bill have never said that there is no demand. The proponents of the Bill have argued that there is a powerful demand. All that we are asking for is the evidence. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that until all shops are entitled to be open legally, it will be very difficult to assess quantitatively the actual and precise demand.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord will recall that a few moments ago he himself said of Edmonton, an area of which he claimed considerable knowledge, that if deregulation took effect Sunday would be the second heaviest shopping day. Is not that an indication that he himself regards demand as likely to be heavy?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: No. I am afraid that the noble Lord misheard what I said. I said that those who know the retailing business, actually the John Lewis Partnership, have said—and I said what they said—that if the Bill is passed Sunday will become the second biggest day of the week. If they are correct—I have already said that Auld has commented that it is all guesswork—I am then saying that we are not talking simply about shops and shop hours; we are talking
640
about the consequences of shops and shop hours. I am saying, knowing the area as I do, that there are two districts where the purgatory that exists on Fridays and Saturdays, in terms of the environment, will be extended to a third day—Sunday.
The case that has been made, largely by the proponents of the Bill, is that the schedule is a nonsense. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, I believe, that it was crazy—not only that the list was crazy but that the attempt to do what we wish by means of a schedule of exempted goods was crazy. In that case, there are a number of crazy countries in Europe. If we are to be described as crazy for trying to introduce an exempt list, what do the noble Lord and others say about the experience of Austria? There the normal weekday extends from 7.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. from Monday to Friday, except for food shops where it is 6.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. On Saturday the hours are 6.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. A general restriction exists on Sunday trading with a list of exemptions—railway outlets, bus stations, airports; souvenirs, travel necessities, sweets, etc. It might not be the list that I would draw up. There may be grumbles and anomalies in Austria. But it is not regarded as crazy to regulate Sunday trading by way of an exemption schedule.
In Denmark normal weekday opening hours are 6 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. and 6 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturday. There is a general restriction on Sunday opening except on the Sunday before Christmas. A later amendment will deal with that. Again, there is a list of goods that can be sold outside those hours. As before, it might not be the list that I would choose, but that is the way it is done.
In France weekday opening hours are completely unrestricted. One can start as early and finish as late as one likes. The relevant legislation restricts the employment of labour on the normal rest day which is Sunday. The general rule is that no employee may be employed on a Sunday, but, then, their labour laws enable arrangements to be made with the agreement of the employer and the employee. That is apparently seen as sense in France. There is a list of exemptions. This is not only a matter of certain commodities but also relates to the type of shop.
In Luxembourg it is a similar pattern. In other words, there are weekday hour restrictions. On Saturday, opening is permitted up to 8 o'clock, while on Sunday all shops selling anything can open until one o'clock. Crazy? Anomalous? Un-British? They do it; they do it successfully and to the best of my knowledge acceptably by the people who live in that country. Then there is a list of exempted conditions.
In West Germany there are weekday opening hours, on a Saturday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. one Saturday in a month, and the four Saturdays preceding Christmas. It is not Sundays but Saturdays which are restricted. On Sunday there is a general restriction on opening with a list of exemptions.
All I say to the noble Lord is that we are at the very beginning of a very long Committee stage of the Bill. The noble Lord has been courteous and always makes very fair speeches. What we on this side of the argument want to hear from the noble Lord at some stage is the possibility that some consideration will be

641
given to those of us who do not believe that complete—or, in the Minister's words, substantial—deregulation is the answer. It may not be on this amendment; it may not be tonight.
I wonder whether the noble Lord would deal with the point as to whether there is a difference between "total" and "substantial"? In his Second Reading speech, the noble Lord used the word "substantial". My understanding of the word "substantial" is not "total". If that is so, then I shall at least rest secure that somewhere along the line some amendment may be moved, or some thought may be raised, which may be helpful to us.
That is as much as I can helpfully say to the Committee at this stage on this amendment. I hope that the Minister will be kind and considerate with this matter.
Baroness Seear: I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I do not like total deregulation. Neither do I like this amendment which I do not think is a practical amendment. But could I pursue the point made by the noble Lord? Is the Minister determined that this Bill will go through—the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill? He must be aware from his postbag, and from what he has heard all around the House, that there is a great deal of very genuine disquiet about the idea of total deregulation. Is the noble Lord going to oppose all amendments that will be put forward? Or is it possible that on the basis of discussion with him, we could see in what ways something less than total deregulation could be devised between us? On this side of the Chamber both the Alliance and Labour Party do not have a Whip on this matter, because we regard this basically as a matter of conscience. But are the Government going to be absolutely intransigent; or can we not get together and see whether there is some way in which some reasonable degree of deregulation can take place, but not the whole, total deregulation?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I intervene only because the noble Viscount did me the honour of referring to me. Before I refer to his point perhaps I may take up what the noble Baroness has just said.
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will deal with each of the amendments on its merits or—so far as I have been able to judge merely by reading the Marshalled List—its demerits. I am dealing with the early amendments. I think that later when it comes to protection of the shopworkers, I may find myself enlisted under the banner of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. But I hope that the noble Lord will resist this and all the other similar amendments.
The noble Viscount pointed out that there would be anomalies. Of course there will, and of course one can make fun of anomalies. However, with respect, he did not really grasp the evil of anomaly in this field. Anomalies which are felt to be unfair and which are difficult to observe and regulations which are felt to be unfair and which are difficult to observe invite an evasion of the law. That arises in two ways. First, it arises when goods can be sold at shop A but not at its rival, shop B. There is an example in the amendment: books at railway stations. There is an extensive W. H.
642
Smith at Victoria Station and another book shop not very far away. If you allow books to be sold out of the very good stock at Victoria Station, the shop in Victoria Street will feel intense resentment.
10.45 p.m.
The other evil arises where you have, as you generally have these days, a shop with mixed stock. An example arises under paragraph (g) in the amendment: "medical and surgical supplies". Most pharmacies sell a very wide range of goods. I do not speak solely of those which are marginal, such as lipsalve, but pharmacies sell other goods. It simply invites the sort of evasion you get today if someone goes into a shop to buy an aspirin and then wants to buy a pair of sunglasses, which it is illegal to sell. There is every temptation to both the shopkeeper and the customer to break the law, and it is almost impossible to supervise.
It is for that reason as well as the other that the present law has been brought into widespread contempt and has been subject to widespread evasion, so tending to bring—as the passage which I quoted earlier from the Auld Report said—the whole of the criminal law into contempt in its train.
Of course there will be anomalies and some do not matter; but the kind of anomalies that I have mentioned, which are inherent in any sort of schedule such as this and which were rightly turned down by the Auld Committee, are, in my respectful submission, quite unacceptable. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will resist them.
The Earl of Arran: I have great confidence that noble Lords will deem this to be a really extraordinarily complicated and, I believe, confusing amendment for it abounds with anomalies similar to those which already exist under the present law. Once again we note with interest that it permits the deans and chapters to open their cathedral shops to sell books. Why, I pray, should books not be allowed to be sold in our group of book shops on Sundays? Why should the Church, the railway stations and civil airports have such a divine monopoly?
Furthermore, it seems to permit the sale of guide books and souvenirs in public museums, but not in historic houses or museums owned by private individuals, unless the local authority certifies it to be in the public interest. Again, the revised schedule does not, for instance, include furniture or electrical goods, goods which families would wish to choose together—the family unit going shopping. Recreational items such as video tapes are excluded from the schedule. Here I have pity on my noble friend Lord Norrie, who is allowed to sell only very restricted items in his garden centre. This is all mad and insane, and it is utterly contrary to the spirit of the proposed legislation.
Such an amendment would only succeed in bringing the law on Sunday shopping into even greater disrepute than it already is, and would serve one purpose only—that of bringing chaos and confusion into the shopping community. It is wholly unworkable and profoundly unwise.
Lord Glenarthur: This amendment reflects what I understand, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, understands, was the most common suggestion made to the Auld Committee when they considered whether any form of regulation could work. There were many proposals for reform by way of simply effecting a change in the machinery of regulation by revising the Fifth Schedule, which of course deals with exempted transactions, and this amendment seeks to revise the list of exemptions to bring the law into line with what no doubt are thought by my noble friend Lord Brentford and those who support him to be modern-day requirements.
I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, embarked on some fairly amazing, selective quotations from the Auld Committee report when he referred to it. I do not think that he mentioned paragraph 193. I think just two or three sentences would serve to put this into context. Paragraph 193, on page 43, starts by saying:
"Even if there were a degree of consensus over the criteria, we can see no possibility of compiling a list that would not be just as plagued with anomalies as the present legislation".
It goes on to say a little further down, in relation to the question of glasses:
"It is absurd that the law should be so unclear that retailers and local authorities should have to do battle in the courts to establish whether the sale of a pair of sunglasses is legal or not."
That was very much the theme of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his comments as well. It goes on in paragraph 194, but I would weary your Lordships if I were to continue with all that this evening.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the noble Lord accepts in toto the conclusions of the Auld Report, which he has just read out, has he any comment to make on how other countries are able to operate an exemption list which it is apparently impossible for us to operate here?
Lord Glenarthur: There is a great danger in following the noble Lord's argument about other countries. Other countries vary enormously in so many different ways that one simply cannot apply the rule of what is good in one country to what may hold good in this country. What the noble Lord should understand is that we are simply suggesting in this Bill that shops may open and that shoppers may shop. What the noble Lord failed to point out is that at the end of the day demand will surely indicate whether or not what is being proposed is right. If the shops are opened and people do not shop, then it will be clear to us that we have got it wrong and the noble Lord need not have the worries which he has expressed so strongly this evening.
I can see that superficially the idea of getting rid of the anomalies created by the present law is not an unattractive one, but the drawing up of a new list of exemptions causes considerable practical difficulties, for what are the criteria which make the sale of some goods acceptable on Sundays, or late at night, but not others?
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me whether or not we were going to be intransigent. It is not a question of intransigence. What I say to the noble Baroness is that each amendment will be considered
644
and deliberated upon, and perhaps even voted upon by your Lordships, as we proceed with the Bill. The noble Baroness—and she was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—referred to my remarks about "substantial" versus "total" in my speech at Second Reading. In summary, what I was saying, if I recall it aright—and I have not had time to read through and find the exact passage—is that there were three essential issues in this debate: the threat to the traditional character of Sunday, the position of small shopkeepers, and whether alternative controls should be applied in preference to substantial deregulation. What I was doing was describing what the issues are. The Government have set out the extent to which they believe deregulation should be substantial in the terms of the Bill. We believe that the time is ripe to remove all statutory restrictions. I really cannot see how what I have said there does not accord with the view that it is substantial deregulation. It seems to me to be synonymous.
It has been traditionally assumed that there are three criteria which have been used to judge whether goods should be exempted—where an emergency occurs, where necessity can be demonstrated and, lastly, where there is demand. As I said just now to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, if there is no demand, as, indeed, my noble friend Lord Brentford said, I really cannot see what everybody is worrying about. I know that that is a point that my noble friend Lady Trumpington would dearly like to have made herself; but I do not think that any but the most ardent Sabbatarian would deny that goods should be sold in an emergency. Clearly medicines must be available and presumably motor spares and petrol to allow motorists to set about what they want to do. I am glad that under this proposal these items would still be available.
But what of the concept of necessity? The amendment proposes, for example, that intoxicating liquors, sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery and ice cream can be sold. But why? I know that most children regard sweets and chocolates as necessities, but can such items really be so described? Who is to draw the line and say that you can buy sweets on a Sunday because generally the public appear to want it—and there would be an outcry if you refused to allow that—but not paint or other items one might buy from a DIY shop despite the fact that there is clearly a substantial demand for such items, which your Lordships will note are not acceptable under the terms of this amendment?
It will be noted that at item (f) in the new list of goods it is now proposed that food, drink and ingredients required for their preparation may now be sold before one o'clock in the afternoon at a shop where not more than three shopworkers are employed and on the premises at the same time. Surely, this is a good example of the difficulties one finds when trying to impose these types of restriction. There are many food shops, some of quite substantial size, now open illegally in London on Sundays. They appear to provide a considerable service, judging by the number of these shops springing up everywhere, and must be satisfying a need. They certainly fulfil a need of mine. I am quite sure that from time to time they fulfil a need of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. That they are springing up in itself indicates a need which exists.

645
Many have more than three staff and may well claim that the running of their shop would prove impossible were they to be restricted to three shopworkers on a Sunday. And who would enforce this particular requirement? Who would ensure that there were only three workers present at any one time? Is this a further burden to be placed on the shoulders of local authorities?—because I am certain that they will be very reluctant to accept it.
In an age of mixed retailing and of self-service, enforcement of the present law is difficult. For example, if a customer selects a non-exempt item along with many exempt items, is it reasonable to expect a shopkeeper, legally open, to refuse to sell goods which he wishes to sell to a customer who has selected them and wishes to buy them? That seems to me to be a nonsense. With the obvious public demand for certain goods on Sundays, and the difficulty in separating legal and illegal transactions, I believe this system would place an unreasonable burden on shopkeepers and the local authorities responsible for enforcement.
Any proposal that does not recognise the present demands—and DIY shops and the full range of products available in garden centres are perhaps the most obvious examples—can be regarded neither as feasible nor as one that will be readily acceptable to the majority of people in this country. Revision of the present schedules really cannot produce a workable solution. However much we would all perhaps like to see it, I can honestly say that in all the examinations that have been undertaken on this subject there seems no reasonable way that such a solution could be found.
Finally, I would turn to the Auld Report: I quoted paragraph 196 earlier. As that report concluded, when considering this kind of proposal, the suggestion
"would be, at best, tinkering with an unsatisfactory law".
I hope that I have said enough to convince my noble friend that, very much along the lines of the schedule as discussed in connection with the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, really we are getting nowhere on this basis. We have had a long and thorough discussion about it. I hope that my noble friend will see fit now to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Brentford: I am encouraged by my noble friend saying that he would very much like to see a list along these lines if it could be produced, and I shall take some heart from that. I have not demurred over the difficulties of a list of this kind. My point is that the unfairness to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred, between one shop and another is far less than the unfairness of total and complete deregulation which is caused to those who would suffer from it.
It is that balance of unfairness which has led me to move this amendment. Nevertheless, at this late stage I will beg leave to withdraw it so as not to inconvenience your Lordships any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  UNITED STATES BASES IN UK: USE BY NATO
  UNITED STATES BASES IN UK: USE BY NATO
  HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS
  HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS
  GYPSY SITE PROVISION: POLICY REVIEW
  GYPSY SITE PROVISION: POLICY REVIEW
  BRITISH LIBRARY: BUILDING PROGRESS
  BRITISH LIBRARY: BUILDING PROGRESS
  ARTS AND LIBRARIES EXPENDITURE PROGRAMME
  ARTS AND LIBRARIES EXPENDITURE PROGRAMME
  FISHING RIGHTS IN COMMUNITY WATERS
  FISHING RIGHTS IN COMMUNITY WATERS