Sitting of 17 December 1985

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

NEW WRITS
Sir Peter Emery: Mr. Speaker, I have given you notice that I am desired today to move for the issue on 3 January of your Warrants in respect of Writs for by-elections in 15 constituencies in Northern Ireland—that is to say, all the constituencies in Northern Ireland except Belfast, West, and Foyle—in place of the 15 Northern Ireland Members of Parliament who have accepted today a disqualifying office—we used to call it "an office of profit under the crown".
In order to save the time of the House may I ask that these motions be taken together and that their text be published in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report?
Mr. Speaker: Does that course have the agreement of the House?
Hon. Members: Aye.
Ordered,
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of East Antrim, in the room of Roy Beggs, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of East Londonderry, in the room of William Ross, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone in the room of Kenneth Maginnis, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Lagan Valley, in the room of the Right honourable James Henry Molyneaux, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Mid-Ulster, in the room of the Reverend Robert Thomas William McCrea, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
140
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Newry and Armagh, in the room of James Nicholson, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of North Antrim, in the room of the Reverend Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of North Down, in the room of James Alexander Kilfedder, Esquire who since his election for the said County Constituency bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Strangford, in the room of the right honourable John David Taylor, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of South Antrim, in the room of Clifford Forsythe, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of South Down, in the room of the Right honourable John Enoch Powell, M.B.E., who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Upper Bann, in the room of James Harold McCusker, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Belfast East, in the room of Peter David Robinson, Esquire, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Belfast North, in the room of Alfred Cecil Walker, Esquire, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.
That, on Friday 3rd January, Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Belfast South, in the room of the Reverend William Martin Smyth, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—[Sir Peter Emery.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Teachers' Pay Dispute
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the teachers' pay dispute.
    Mr. Hancockasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the teachers' pay dispute.
    Mr. Alan Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the outstanding issues in the teachers' dispute.
    Mr. Randallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.
    Mr. Merchantasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the current position in the teachers' dispute.
    Mr. Spencerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the latest position in the teachers' dispute.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): The teachers' panel of the Burnham committee met on 5 December and resolved to seek an early resumption of negotiations. The management panel met on 11 December and agreed to undertake further informal discussions with the teachers' side. Discussions are taking place today.
    I welcome any development which may help to achieve a settlement of this bitter, damaging and unnecessary dispute. But it remains the Government's view that an honourable, worthwhile and lasting settlement will come only from a bargain which clarifies teachers' duties and reforms their career structure as well as improving pay levels. The teachers' unions have so far refused to try to negotiate a deal of that kind.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of families are desperately worried by the serious and permanent damage that is being inflicted on their children by the dispute? Is he further aware that while many of them recognise that the intransigence of the NUT has brought about the situation, they look to the Government in general and to my right hon. Friend in particular to take a lead in bringing about an early solution to the problem?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, and some of the teachers' unions could end the disruption today. The Government have taken an initiative in the conditional offer that they have made.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are two unyielding obstacles—the determination of
    142
    the teachers to prolong the dispute and the non-availability of resources to make an increased pay settlement in 1985? Will he equip himself with the powers necessary to pursue the objectives which he rightly has, and bring an end to this damaging dispute?
    Sir Keith Joseph: If the Government sought to equip themselves with powers, I doubt whether that would immediately end the disruption.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Alan Howarth.
    Mr. Hancock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question is No. 2 on the Order Paper and I was informed that my question would be taken with question No. 1.
    Mr. Speaker: The mistake is entirely mine. Mr. Hancock.
    Mr. Hancock: Will the Secretary of State say whether responsibility for settling the teachers' dispute has been taken out of his hands by the Prime Minister? Will he inform the House what proposals she has laid before him for any solution to the dispute and of any initiative coming from her?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. The Government have no new initiatives to put before the House.
    Mr. Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's desire that, as resources become available, teachers' salaries should more adequately reflect the great importance of their responsibilities and their high professional standards, but that one of the conditions for teachers enjoying such a high professional standing is that they should forswear the disruption of their pupils' education?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. To ensure the recruitment and retention of the right quality of persons as teachers and effective teaching, the Government see it as necessary to provide an adequate pay and career structure.
    Mr. Merchant: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious anxiety now being displayed by parents at the effective abandonment of children during lunchtime in many areas by the teachers' unions' withdrawal of supervision? Is he aware of the problems in Newcastle where, in some areas, children have been threatened with sexual abuse and assaulted during lunchtime because there is no supervision? What steps is he taking to ensure that local authorities use their maximum powers to ensure that alternative arrangements are made at lunchtime to provide supervision for those children?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The House will be aware that the Government have introduced a Bill to enable local education authorities to make alternative and effective arrangements for midday supervision.
    Mr. Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Union of Teachers has taken special selective action in the constituencies of some Members to whose views it has taken exception? Does he agree that that is an especially nasty and vindictive form of attack on innocent children?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is only a fraction worse than the general indifference to children's welfare shown by some teacher unions.
    Mr. Flannery: The Minister says that the unions could end the dispute overnight. Why does he not say that the reality is that the Government could end the dispute overnight? Despite his gerrymandering of the Burnham committee, the teachers' unity will continue for a long time after Christmas because of the Government's intransigence in failing to pay teachers a professional wage and refusing to give them the status that they should have, which would be the way to get children back to school. He knows that as well as the House does.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Why does the hon. Gentleman persist in ignoring the fact that after a mere 20 minutes the National Union of Teachers and other teachers' unions rejected the Government's initiative when they offered substantial increases, conditionally, of pay for good teachers?
    Mr. Sean Hughes: Did the Secretary of State mean what he said when he told the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) that the Government have no intention of taking any initiative to bring this dispute to a halt?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have taken an initiative which the teachers' unions could request the employers to pick up again tomorrow if they wished.
    Mr. Barnett: Is the Secretary of State aware that the NUT's demands, which if responded to by him would settle the dispute, are entirely reasonable? It has asked for the cost of living during the current financial year to be taken into account, for the relativities between teachers and other professions to be restored, that there should be an element in the settlement to take account of the fact that teachers have fallen far behind others, and that he should give a commitment that there will be an attempt in future years to restore teachers' salaries to the level of Houghton? Is that not reasonable?
    Sir Keith Joseph: No, Sir. The NUT walked out of negotiations in December 1984 which might have provided additional finance from taxpayers for the current year.
    Mr. Haynes: Why does the Secretary of State have a one-track mind? There are two arguments in this. Why does he not stop interfering, and let the unions negotiate and settle the matter? They will win in the end.
    Sir Keith Joseph: It would be extremely satisfatory if some Opposition Members spoke up for the children.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I recently saw a deputation of parents whose children had refused to attend a detention imposed on them for misbehaving during the teachers' strike? Is that not understandable, but sad, silly and tragic? Has not the time come for teachers to stop damaging children's education and to go back to work, and for a proper inquiry, not just into pay, but into pay and conditions, to be held?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I am not convinced that an inquiry, however broad, would automatically bring this disruption immediately to an end.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that of the many teachers whom I have met and who are now in dispute, every one regrets having to take what he or she regards as necessary action to protect his or her profession and rights? Is he further aware that the teachers deeply resent the sort of allegation that he has seen fit to make again today, that they do not look after the welfare of the children, about whom they care deeply, but that that does not present them from trying to ensure that their profession has a decent life and continues to attract the first-class people whom the Minister would wish it to attract?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The teachers are men and women given by God free will, and it is their decision to disrupt children's education. There is no question of having to do that.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that while nothing can excuse the victimisation of children that is taking place on such a wide scale, and while only the teachers can give a status to their profession, there is real merit in my right hon. Friend considering during the recess the suggestion made by his predecessor, our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), who suggested the establishment of a review body to consider the whole issue, on condition that further action was immediately called off?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The behaviour of teachers is not such as to recommend the Government to consider a review body. Moreover, it is perfectly possible for the employers and teachers to agree on pay that rewards good teachers, recruits and retains people of the right quality, and which is affordable.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Secretary of State genuinely believe that he is doing enough to settle the teachers' dispute?
    Sir Keith Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman has suggestions that would be affordable, would achieve the Government's purposes, and would end the disruption, I would gladly listen to them or read them. Of the options available to the Government, I believe that the right one is to persuade the teachers to do their duty by the children and to finish the disruption now.
    Mr. Powley: Would my right hon. Friend care to reflect on the attitude of the general secretary of the NUT when in a 20-minute address to the Back-Bench education committee he never once mentioned the effect of the dispute on the children, whom we should consider primarily, nor its financial effect? Many of us see other areas for expenditure in the education service, such as on improvement in the capitation allowance, and in buildings, and on welfare in schools.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I would not be surprised if that were true, and I am sure that the gentleman concerned remains self-righteous despite it.
    Mr. Radice: With the dispute now in its 11th month, is it not about time that the Secretary of State took a fresh initiative? He has not moved since the beginning of August to try to end the disruption in our schools. Why does he not establish an independent fast-acting inquiry on teachers' pay, which many of us have been urging on him for many months?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The employers also asked for an inquiry and the Government considered such ideas, but

    145
    there is no reason to expect that an inquiry would automatically end the current disruption. I hope that the hon. Gentleman tries to bring the same persuasive power to bear on the teachers as he does on the Government.

    CERN
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet decided on the level of future British contributions to the CERN project.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): My right hon. Friend has not yet reached a decision in this matter.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my hon. Friend aware that the CERN project is a rare example of a successful European collaborative venture that which will help to keep Europe in the forefront of world science? Does he agree that if we alone reduce our contribution we shall send all the wrong signals to the many other European countries involved, as well as damaging the project itself?
    Mr. Walden: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question and one of the first things that I did was to go to visit CERN for myself. It is a centre of excellence. It is no part of our intention to damage it, but we have taken serious note of Professor Kendrew's recommendations, and in his view it will be possible to save 25 per cent. of the expenses. I reaffirmed in my contacts with member states that the Government continue to place the highest priority on European collaboration.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why did the hon. Gentleman say last night that it would be wrong to make a hasty judgment?
    Mr. Walden: Because that is self-evidently the truth. Professor Kendrew reported in June. I am undertaking a round of consultations and so far I have talked to nine of the 13 Ministers of member states. That is not evidence of hasty judgments.
    Mr. Freud: Are there not grave implications for international co-operative ventures such as might come with SDI? Would it not be more sensible to invest money than to withdraw from something as valuable as CERN?
    Mr. Walden: Not for the first time, I fail to see the connection between two propositions that the hon. Gentleman has put.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister's proposal for a joint independent review of CERN similar to that of the Kendrew committee, or is he considering a wider international review of particle physics research, in which the United States and the Soviet Union might participate? Does not the latter course open up wider possibilities of international co-operation?
    Mr. Walden: For the moment, our objective is to secure a radical review of the CERN operations, but against a mental background of the kind recommended by the hon. Gentleman. I noted carefully the thoughtful comments that he made on this subject in last night's debate.

    Teachers' Pay Dispute
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will institute an inquiry into the arrangements for the remuneration of teachers and their conditions of service.
    Sir Keith Joseph: On 11 December the management panel restated its view that a Royal Commission or some other kind of inquiry should be established to look into teachers' pay, structure, conditions of service and negotiating machinery. Naturally I will give careful consideration to that request, but I have to say that it is difficult to see how such action would produce an early resolution of the present dispute in view of the union's insistence on a settlement for 1985 without conditions, at a level which the employers cannot afford.
    Mr. Chapman: While I hope that good sense will prevail, particularly on the part of the NUT leadership and the dispute will be brought to an end, I should like my right hon. Friend to be a little more forthcoming. Is there any good reason why he should not set up a short inquiry now, irrespective of whether the negotiations are successful, and in linking conditions of service and pay have such an inquiry, whether or not with the co-operation of the NUT?
    Sir Keith Joseph: It is not self-evident that such an inquiry would bring to an end the present disruption. Discussions are taking place this afternoon between the employers and the teachers' representatives. I do not want to pin too much hope on what might emerge from the discussions this afternoon, but I repeat that an inquiry would not necessarily end the disruption.
    Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State said earlier that this was a bitter and damaging dispute, and he referred to initiatives. Does he agree that it was his initial initiative and the requirement to link appraisal and pay that has caused the length and bitterness of this dispute? Is not the Secretary of State's initiative responsible, therefore, for a high proportion of the bitterness and damage to which he referred?
    Sir Keith Joseph: No, indeed not. I do not for a moment believe that my modest suggestion, which is agreed in principle by so many teachers as well as by so many members of the public, has any part to play in this dispute.
    Mr. Alexander: I accept the constraints under which the employers must operate in this dispute, but is it not a fact that there is a great shortage of mathematics and science teachers? Is not this shortage likely to continue until arrangements can be made to make salaries attractive to graduates in those disciplines?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Most certainly yes. One of the advantages of the offer that the employers made on 12 September, with the help of conditional additional money from the taxpayers, was precisely that it would have enabled employers to offer relatively attractive salaries to teachers who are in short supply.
    Mr. Freeson: Whenever it is suggested that an independent inquiry of some kind should be set up—a suggestion that comes from both sides of the House and from outside—why does the Secretary of State keep on repeating, parrot fashion, the phrase, "It is not self-evident that such an inquiry would end the present disruption"?

    147
    Nobody is suggesting that it would, but just because it is not self-evident to the Secretary of State, must everybody else therefore be ignored? Why will he not shift just a little bit to meet the views of many people, of all persuasions, and make some kind of movement to resolve the present dispute?
    Sir Keith Joseph: It is an indication of the irrationality of some of the unions involved in the dispute that makes the right hon. Gentleman accept the possibility that even an inquiry would not bring to an end the destructive damage that is being caused by the dispute to the education of children. It is often in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if introduced, an inquiry would end the disruption. I believe that it is right to say that that is not self-evident.
    Mr. Madel: Is it not time, after 11 months of dispute, that the teacher trade unions made use of the good offices of ACAS to try to resolve the dispute? Even though the full-scale intervention of ACAS would not necessarily end the dispute, it should lead, first, to a lowering of the temperature and, secondly, to an end to the industrial trouble while ACAS does its best to solve the problem. Why do the trade unions not go to ACAS and be seen to be trying to solve the problem?
    Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend makes very sensible suggestions, but they are, alas, for the trade unions and the teachers concerned, not for the Government.
    Mr. Radice: Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and people outside, will be deeply depressed by what the Secretary of State has said this afternoon. Why does he not put an end to the Government's muddle, indecision and inactivity over the teachers' dispute and announce that he has decided upon and agreed to set up an independent inquiry?
    Sir Keith Joseph: For the umpteenth time—because I do not believe that it would fulfil the hopes of many hon. Members, and of many outside the House, who imagine that the teacher unions would then behave reasonably.

    Student Grant
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to restore the student grant, in real terms, to its 1979–80 value.
    Mr. Walden: No, Sir.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Under-Secretary admit that yesterday's decision to increase student grants this year by only 2 per cent. will mean that by next year students will have sustained a cut in real terms of 20 per cent. since 1979, and that yesterday's decision to reduce students' housing benefit, unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit during short vacations will mean that in real terms £14 million will be cut from students' allowances during the next year, making a net saving to the Government of £20 million? Does he not accept that he is surreptitiously introducing by the back door the provisions of his Green Paper, against the wishes of his own Back Benchers?
    Mr. Walden: I accept—because it is incontrovertible —that over the years there has been a cut in the grant to students, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that the number of students in this country is at an all-time high.
    148
    Secondly, he must accept that students in this country benefit from the most generous system of support in the Western world. Thirdly, he must accept that the cost of that support must be shared among students, parents and the taxpayer.
    As for benefits, I understand that a written answer on this question is down for reply tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend aware that our student grant system is the envy of many students throughout the world, who are expected to make a much greater contribution towards their education? Will he undertake again to review the possibility of introducing a loan system, which works perfectly satisfactorily in many other civilised, developed countries?
    Mr. Walden: Let me elaborate on the cost of student grants in this country. The United Kingdom devotes a greater proportion of GNP to student support than do our major competitors. For example, it is twice as much as West Germany, two and a half times as much as the United States, and about seven times as much as France and Italy.
    I assure my hon. Friend and the House that full consideration was given to all the implications of introducing a loan system, but it was felt that for a number of reasons it would not be right to introduce it at the present time. Two of the reasons were high initial costs and the effect on low income groups.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can we take it from what the Minister has said that the Government are now determined to reduce the record number of students by giving them inadequate support? Why, after six years in office, cannot the Government at least afford to maintain the level of student grants rather than cutting them by about 3 per cent. next year? Should not the Minister come clean and tell us what will happen to student grants as a result of the removal of the right to claim housing benefit during vacations? Does yesterday's statement that there will be some adjustment mean that the grant will be substantially below the amount that will be lost?
    Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there is no evidence at all to suggest that the fall in the value of the grant has resulted from a decline in the demand for higher education. Therefore, his first question falls heavily to the ground.
    He asked why the Government could not afford to do better. If he took the trouble to look back, he would find that, unfortunately, there has been a steady decline in the value of grants ever since 1962. Perhaps this was another example of this country promising too much, too widely.
    Although the hon. Gentleman referred to benefits, I am sure that he would not wish me to anticipate the answer that will be given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

    World Archaeological Conference
    Mr. Sternasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Association of University Teachers to discuss the proposed world archaeological conference; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Walden: No, Sir. No approach on this issue has been made to the Department.
    Mr. Stern: Is my hon. Friend aware of the circumstances in which a major international congress, which would normally attract academics from all over the world, has been attacked by the Association of University Teachers, which wishes to define the countries from which people should be invited? Is he further aware that that attack had been backed up by the vice-chancellor of Southampton university, Dr. Higginson? In view of this attempt to blackmail academics into submission to the current political shibboleth, will he note that the guidelines issued yesterday by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on freedom of speech in our universities are silent on this form of blackmail? Will he send them back, on the basis that they are totally inadequate?
    Mr. Walden: I have, naturally enough, seen references to the ban in the press, but it is entirely a matter for the organisers of the world archaeological conference whether to impose one. I understand that the matter has not been considered by the senate or the council of the university and that no such condition was proposed by the university. My hon. Friend suggests that we send back the guidelines from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which we received only this morning. I hope that he will give us time to read them first.

    Crayford School
    Mr. Evennettasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations about the proposed closure of Crayford school.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): No, Sir.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my hon Friend consider the proposal to close Crayford school carefully when it arrives on his desk for a decision, and take account of the wishes of parents and the local community? Will he also consider the problems that children will face if they have to travel a long way to another school?
    Mr. Patten: I know what an informed interest in due course my hon. Friend has shown in this issue. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will want to take appropriate account of all representations from his constituents.

    Schools (Internal Management)
    Mr. Neil Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to restrict the circumstances in which local education authorities may intervene in the internal management of schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The Education Bill to be introduced this Session will include proposals to establish a consistent pattern in the distribution of functions between the governing body, the local education authority and the head teacher. The local education authority will not then be able to override the governing body or the head teacher in the discharge of the functions allocated to them.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure he will be gratified to learn that we are on the same wavelength. There is a widespread desire among parents to strike off the shackles of political control and make schools more autonomous. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will cover the circumstances such as
    150
    have occurred at Poundswick school in Manchester? What happens in the meantime, until the Bill is passed? What protection is there for parents?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has filled my cup to overflowing and I very much hope that he is a member of the Committee that considers the Bill. Irrespective of whether we are talking about Poundswick or other matters, what is at issue is not so much the powers held by different interests, as how they are exercised. When responsibilities are split, there is scope for unproductive conflict. That can never be entirely removed.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: The Secretary of State wrote to me on 9 December about the dispute at Poundswick high school in Manchester. As today-17 December—marks the time limit for a reply from the Manchester education authority to the Department's recent letter, is there anything more that the Minister can say further to the reply that I received on 9 December?
    Mr. Patten: We have not yet received a reply from the education authority. I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern and we shall, of course, get in touch with him as soon as possible.
    Mr. Lawler: If the Labour and Liberal groups had had their way in Bradford, Mr. Honeyford would have been summarily dismissed a long time ago merely for expressing views with which they happened to disagree. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in the forthcoming legislation, opportunities for local authorities to dismiss school staff will be restricted?
    Mr. Patten: I suggest that my hon. Friend awaits the Bill. I understand that the difficult and sensitive issue to which he referred has now been settled, but I deplore the way in which some extremists have aggravated a delicate situation in a way that is clearly not in the interests of children.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the educational content of the youth training scheme.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The new two-year youth training scheme will give all trainees the opportunity to secure a recognised vocational qualification combining training and work experience with relevant education.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister not understand that the Manpower Services Commission, YTS trainees and the Trades Union Congress aspire to a higher educational content in the YTS programme and that that cannot be achieved without additional funding? How can he expect the two-year programme to achieve a better standard of educational content with the same real terms funding as the one-year programme?
    Mr. Patten: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I shall send him a copy of the speech that I made to the further education staff college a couple of weeks ago.
    Mr. Dorrell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the object of the YTS is to provide a skilled labour force for industry? It may be important to provide extra funding for adult education, but is it not better to address that issue separately than to try to distract the YTS to provide the funds?
    Mr. Patten: I take my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Sheerman: Rather than sending us copies of his speeches, will the Minister take on board the fact that many of the disadvantaged youngsters in our community who are in what are now called premium places—which used to be called mode B schemes — on two-year schemes are in great need of a special sort of education content? Is he aware that they will not receive the education content that they deserve, because of the 15 per cent. limit? Many disadvantaged youngsters will not have a mode B or premium place scheme within the YTS. What will he do about that with his colleagues in the
    Mr. Patten: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I think that he was straying into some of the territory of my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General. I still think that the hon. Gentleman would find my speech quite interesting.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister happy with the increasing infiltration of the MSC into education, which is provoking an artificial split between education and training? Surely it is important to recognise that any training given under a two-year YTS would qualify the trainee for higher education. Does not the split between the Departments impede that development?
    Mr. Patten: The more I listen to the hon. Gentleman, the better I think my speech was. I do not accept his premise.

    Free Speech
    Mr. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has had from vice-chancellors and principals of institutions of higher education to the concerns that he has expressed over the suppression of free speech.
    Mr. Walden: Higher education authorities have affirmed their support for the principle of free speech. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals yesterday published guidelines for the universities on freedom of speech and lawful assembly. My right hon. Friend welcomes this action and will consider whether the content of the guidelines raises questions that he would wish to discuss with the committee.
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not a fact that the report from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals said, in effect, "Of course we believe in free speech, but"? Did it not then produce a series of excuses for not being able to implement that belief in reality? Will my hon. Friend and the Government consider the prosecution of any student who is involved in incidents such as that which we saw at Manchester university involving my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), the Minister of State, Home Office?
    Mr. Walden: The practical problems of ensuring that an individual speaker is given a fair hearing are formidable. The Government are grateful for the advice of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the vice-chancellor of Manchester univerity expressing his view that a refusal to give a hearing to a Minister who had been invited to explain Government policy cannot be defended. He noted that the university's declared intention was to
    152
    take firm action in response to the incident at Manchester on 8 November. The university made it clear immediately after the incident that it would consider recommending its council to withhold a proportion of the student union's grant if the latter's full report on the incident and its causes was not satisfactory.
    Mr. Conlan: Why does the Minister not inform his hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), as the Prime Minister is fond of informing others, that prosecutions are for the police and have nothing to do with the Government?
    Mr. Walden: The premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question was based is obviously wrong, but his assertion that criminal prosecutions are matters for the police is obviously right.

    Parent Governors
    Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that elections of parent governors are fairly conducted; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Under section 2(9) of the Education Act 1980, responsibility for the conduct of elections of parent governors is for the local education authority, except in the case of aided and special agreement schools, where that is for the governors. Any contested election has to be by secret ballot, but otherwise LEAs and governing bodies are free to make what arrangements are appropriate to their particular local circumstances.
    Mr. Howarth: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there should be provision to provide for a quorum of parents? Does he not also think it a good idea that notices of the elections for parent governors should be published in the annual report of the school, not only so that parents can be given plenty of warning, but so that they can choose suitable candidates?
    Mr. Patten: The greater the clarity, and the longer the warning of the elections, the better.

    Teacher Appraisal
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what means he intends that teachers should be appraised; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I should like to see teacher appraisal conducted at the level of the individual school by the teachers themselves, in accordance with general arrangements introduced and monitored by local education authorities.
    Mr. Bruinvels: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to proper teacher appraisal. However, is he aware that Fred Jarvis, the secretary of the National Union of Teachers, and various other high-ranking officials, are deliberately smearing his plan? They are suggesting that the assessment will be done purely on pupils getting better examination results, rather than teachers improving themselves in the school. Is that not a shocking approach?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not agree with everything that Mr. Jarvis does or says, but I am informed that there is a good deal of unanimity of opinion between Mr. Jarvis and his union and the Government on the matter of appraisal.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Fallonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread concern on the Conservative Benches about the moral implications of unprosecuted fraud, hidden evidence, and ill-made money, and that we welcome the rigorous steps proposed by her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the weekend to clean up those parts of the City which the law does not appear to reach?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the views expressed by my hon. Friend. No one is more anxious than the Government to ensure that those who are guilty of fraud are brought to justice. The Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary have just received Lord Roskill's report. It contains about 112 recommendations. We shall be considering it carefully. It is a weighty document, and we hope to be able to publish it next month.
    Ms. ClareShort asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Short: Will the Prime Minister admit that she and her Ministers have been seriously misleading the House and the country over the past three months in suggesting that the unemployment rate has been falling and that that development shows some improvement in the real economy when, in fact, the fall is caused by an increase in places on the Government community programme for the long-term unemployed? That programme has increased by just over 24,000 places. The seasonal drop in unemployment is only just under 16,000, so that in the real economy unemployment is still rising. When will the Government start to do something about real jobs in the real economy instead of just fiddling the figures?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that the Opposition were in favour of a community programme and of training young people. I shall have to revise my views, because clearly they are not. Yes, there are 230,000 places on the community programme to help the long-term unemployed back into work. Yes, there are 30,000 unfilled places. Yes, we shall continue with the programme because we wish to continue to help the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Labour party's policy to renationalise newly privatised industries, with compensation being given only on the basis of the original investment price? Does she agree that that is a disastrous threat to the millions of new shareholders?
    The Prime Minister: Wider share ownership is a great principle of the Conservative party. The Labour party will have nothing to do with it.
    Mr. Kinnock: In 1984 the Prime Minister promised "to protect the poor and those most in need."
    What does she now say to the pensioner couple in their seventies, who will lose £3 a week? What does she now say to the middle-aged couple on a take-home wage of £75 a week, who are to lose £5 a week? What does she say to a 24-year-old single worker taking home £55 a week, who is to lose £12? How does she excuse the malice and immorality of that act of robbery against the people who are already poor?
    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to accept all the increases that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced yesterday, and to forget that there might have to be some losers—[Interruption.] There might have to be some losers—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman wants to forget that there might have to be some losers. However, if he looks at the total expenditure, which is set out in the autumn statement, he will see that this year the total planned expenditure on social security is £40 billion, but by the year 1988–89 it is planned to be £46 billion. That is an increase of £6 billion, which will have to be found out of taxation and contributions by ordinary people.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not about time that the Prime Minister honestly admitted to the country that more money is spent on benefits for the poor because her policies have made many more people poor? Is it not time for her to say to those whom she glibly dismisses as "some losers" that she could not live on £75 a week and could not tolerate a further loss of £5 a week? How can she defend taking money from people who are already desperately poor, when she knows that her objective is to give more to those who are already very rich?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, the point of the proposals is to direct resources to the areas of greatest need. The new family credit will go to 200,000 more families with children than now have the family income supplement. The right hon. Gentleman wants to take the benefits and all the increases, and accept none of the consequences of redistribution. My right hon. Friend wants improved incentives to work, and he wants to ensure that commitments entered into can be afforded. With that in mind, he has put forward his proposals, and they will require an increase in expenditure over planned expenditure this year and expenditure in 1988 of some £6 billion, which will have to be found by the taxpayer. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think that that is reasonable. If not, how much more would his plan cost?
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now tell us when it is right to increase the money given to the near destitute in this country? What on earth is the moral or economic justification for finding that money by stealing from the very poor?
    The Prime Minister: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman has gone over the top—[Interruption.] I take it that he does not want any of the increases that are to go to families, that he does not want improved incentives to

    155
    work and does not want to ensure that commitments entered into can be afforded. He wants to promise the earth and not say how it is to be paid for.
    Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although elderly people are interested in pensions and housing benefit, they are mainly concerned about the protection of their environment, law and order on their council estates, and the fear that they cannot safely open their doors in the evening? Will my right hon. Friend continue to reinforce the police and help the chief constables in the regions to have discussions with the communities on neighbourhood watch schemes?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that elderly folk, along with others, are very much concerned with law and order, especially on the council estates. I think he will agree that under this Government old-age pensions have gone up by more than the cost of living, and that under this Government old-age pensioners have had their Christmas bonus every year, which was not the case under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Terry Lewisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lewis: In the dispute between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Defence, whose side is the right hon. Lady on?
    The Prime Minister: I am on the side of a company that is hoping to keep business going for its considerable work force, that has responsibilities to its shareholders and moral responsibilities to its work force, that must deal with its obligations to its bankers and that also has to consider the legal obligations of auditors. In the very sensitive situation that we now have, I suggest that it is left to the company to decide its future.
    Dr. Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend go further and take this opportunity to correct the impression that emerged from yesterday's statement on Westland that the Government are backing the Sikorsky deal and confirm that for a long time the Government have sought greater collaboration among European armament manufacturers, which is particularly long overdue with helicopters?
    The Prime Minister: Westland is a public limited company. It must take its own decisions. The Government saw that it had a choice. The board has legal obligations to the shareholders, it has moral obligations to the work force, the banks have their obligations and the auditors have their legal obligations. The people on the board are the only ones in a position to know all the facts. They must make their assessment and present that to the company.
    Mr. Steel: Reverting to the first question to the Prime Minister this afternoon, since the deputy chairman of the Conservative party is reported to be acting as a character reference for the return of Mr. Postgate to Lloyd's, will she remind him and everybody else that the Government, like her predecessor's, stand against the unacceptable face of capitalism?
    The Prime Minister: I have said that the Government have probably done more than any other to try to tackle fraud wherever it occurs. That will continue to be our
    156
    policy. As I said, Lord Roskill's report has reached the Government. We are publishing today the White Paper on banking supervision, and the Financial Services Bill will be introduced later this week. We have done, and shall continue to do, everything possible. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman does the City a great disservice by forgetting the number of jobs and the amount of income that it provides for Britain. He is trying to suggest that because some things may be wrong somewhere, that applies to the whole City. That is not correct.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: While we are on the subject of aerospace, has my right hon. Friend noticed today that the figures for the British aerospace industry are £1 billion up on this time last year, representing a 23 per cent. increase, and of that some 60 per cent. are exports to the world? Does not she think that that is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing industry?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the aerospace industry on its excellent export record and would like to point out that other parts of manufacturing industry have done very well. Indeed, exports by manufacturing industry were a record last year.
    Mr. Sean Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the fact that the under-25 age group appears to be another group targeted for cuts in welfare benefits mean that the Prime Minister now accepts the view of the vice-chairman of the Tory party that too many young people will not get off their backsides and find work?
    The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, no one has done more for youth training than have this Government. The one millionth youth trainee has now entered the scheme. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Labour party treats these matters with such levity.
    Mr. Freemanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent reception on the Conservative Benches of yesterday's White Paper, especially the proposal for a broader spread of personal pensions? Will she continue to preach the principles of thrift and the broader spread of financial assets?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the White Paper. It is meant, among other things, to give wider choice to those who wish to save through a personal pension scheme and build up a capital fund on their own account. It is also directed to help more effectively those in greatest need, such as young families, through the new family credit scheme, and to give improved incentives to work.
    It means that the commitment that we enter into can be afforded. That is a matter to which the Opposition have given no attention since the last election. Indeed, since then they have already promised an additional £10 billion without specifying from where that will come.
    Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that, during Question Time, once again the tactics of the Labour party were to shout down my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at every opportunity—
    158
    [Interruption.]—as they are trying to do to me now. Will you please use your influence to protect this House from the barbaric tactics of the Opposition?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The noise during Question Time today was rather greater than usual, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Banking Supervision
3·31 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I am publishing today a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for strengthening banking supervision, with a view to bringing a new banking Bill before the House early in the next Session.
The proposals contained in the White Paper reflect the vital importance that this Government attach to effective supervision. They build on the findings of the review of banking supervision that I set up exactly a year ago today under the chairmanship of the Governor of the Bank of England, in the wake of the Johnson Matthey Bankers debacle. Six months later, when the group's report was published, I told the House that the Government were minded to accept its two key recommendations. I can now confirm that both will be implemented.
First, the new legislation will extend to banks the higher supervisory standards that Labour's 1979 Banking Act applied only to licensed deposit takers, and not to recognised banks. That means that the so-called two-tier system will go. I have, however concluded that it would be right to confine the use of the name "bank" to institutions with at least £5 million in paid up equity capital.
Second, the Government will do whatever is needed to permit effective two-way communication between supervisors and bank auditors. If this can be done on the basis of agreed professional guidelines, underpinned by statute, well and good; if not, we shall not hesitate to take appropriate further powers.
However, assisted by the extensive consultations that have taken place since I made my statement to the House in June, I have become convinced that it would be right in a number of respects to go beyond the Leigh-Pemberton committee's recommendations.
The key to better supervision is the organisation and ability of the supervisors themselves. Last October, the Governor announced changes in the Bank's organisation to give supervision a higher priority. To carry that further, he will now set up, as soon as possible, a new board of banking supervision within the Bank of England. The board will be given statutory backing in the forthcoming legislation. It will be chaired by the Governor, and a majority of its members will be experienced practitioners from outside the Bank of England. That will bring independent outside expertise to bear at the highest level and give more forceful direction to the task of bank supervision. The board's views will be separately identified in the Bank's annual report, which I lay before the House.
Second, supervisors cannot do their jobs unless they have adequate, accurate and timely information. That was one clear lesson of the JMB affair. Under the existing legislation, it is not a criminal offence to mislead the supervisors, even if this is done knowingly or recklessly. I propose to make it one—with appropriate penalties.
As I told the House in June, one of the most conspicuous reasons for JMB's failure was that it was over-committed to a small number of closely related borrowers. Building on the Leigh-Pemberton committee's recommendation, I propose to make it a statutory
160
requirement for banks to notify all such exposures in excess of 10 per cent. of their capital base; and all exposures in excess of 25 per cent. will require prior notification.
Important as they are, rules of this kind are not enough. Supervisors need to have a better knowledge of individual institutions at first hand. I therefore welcome the steps that have recently been taken to increase the frequency of supervisory visits to banks, on a routine basis as well as where there are grounds for prudential concern.
The nature of banking is changing fast and the supervisory system has to keep up with it. We cannot prescribe for every eventuality in advance. In particular, there is a risk that new forms of deposit-taking may fall through the supervisory net. I therefore propose to take powers to vary by secondary legislation the definition of deposits and deposit-taking around which the legislation' will continue o be structured.
I am also very conscious that banking supervision can no longer be considered in isolation. The Government are urgently considering the supervisory problems posed by the growth of financial conglomerates. One of the most obvious requirements is that those who supervise banks should be able to exchange information with other supervisory authorities. Legislation this session will make that possible. Changes in the confidentiality requirements, including those in the Banking Act, will be secured through the financial services and building societies Bills this session.
The details of these and other proposals are in the White Paper. They represent a considered, full and prompt response to the real lessons of the Johnson Matthey Bankers affair. The system of supervision we will be putting in place will be strict. without being a straitjacket. The proposals avoid the pitfalls of unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative upheaval. They also avoid the danger of setting out rules so rigid that they encourage compliance with their letter but not with their sprit.
As I told the House in June, an effective system of banking supervision is essential, not merely for the protection of depositors but for the financial health of the economy as a whole. Effective supervision is also a vital weapon in the fight against fraud, which the Government are determined to do all in their power to combat. Supervision cannot eradicate risk—nor should it—and it must not stifle competition. Nor, above all, can it derogate in the slightest degree from the overriding responsibility of managers to run their businesses soundly and properly.
Together with the Building Societies Bill, to be read for the Second time on Thursday, and the forthcoming financial services legislation, I believe that the proposals outlined in this White Paper will help to create a comprehensive and effective statutory framework for a rapidly changing financial services sector.
I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Does the Chancellor realise that outside the City and the Tory party the proposals that he has outlined will be regarded as grossly inadequate, a reflection more of the City's views and values than of the growing concern about supervision of the City in general and the banking system in particular? Will he understand that confidence will not be restored while the duties of supervision essentially remain within the Bank of England? Negligence in the Bank of England contributed to the Johnson Matthey scandal. When asked

161
[Mr. Roy Hattersley] to report on the lessons learnt from that affair, an inquiry dominated by the Bank of England made recommendations that even the Chancellor rejects; yet the power of supervision is to be given to the Bank of England.
While the Chancellor, in his own words, retains the powers "within the Bank of England", some of the proposals that we welcome and some of the proposls that our pressure brought about — such as the statutory backing and the extension of the criminal law to cover the misleading of supervisors—will be seen as generally inadequate.
I ask the Chancellor the basic question relating to his statement: Why must the board of banking supervision remain in the City's own club? Why can it not be created outside, with all the additional confidence that its independence would provide?
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer some specific questions? For example, when the supervisory body is told of an exposure of more than 25 per cent., what powers will that body possess? If it discovers that the bank in question is over-exposed, what can it do about it other than note it and worry about it?
What changes does the right hon. Gentleman propose in the confidentiality requirements? When shall we hear of them, and when will they be passed into law? Indeed, does he appreciate the need for speed in this operation and the need to introduce the new legislation—the statutory backing — quickly to overcome any feeling that the Government do not want to tackle this matter urgently?
Do the Chancellor and the Leader of the House appreciate that the whole question of the supervision of the City is now such a matter of national concern that a debate in the House is urgently needed? Are they aware that, if the Government will not give time for such a debate, the Opposition will provide it at the first opportunity?
Mr. Lawson: My response to the right hon. Gentleman's last point is that I have set out in the White Paper important matters which I recognise the House might well wish to debate. However, that is a matter for the Leader of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman's categorisation of the measures which I have outlined, and which are outlined more fully, as inadequate, is wholly and completely untrue, but we shall, no doubt, have an opportunity to discuss that in the context of the forthcoming Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions and made allegations about the Bank of England, allegations which I wholly reject. The JMB affair was a lapse, but a lapse from a very high supervisory standard which the Bank of England has carried out—[Interruption.]—over a number of years and which is recognised as such throughout the world.
The legislative framework which I am now tightening was put in place by the Labour Government. That framework, the 1979 Act, was inadequate. It took them five years—from the secondary banking crisis of 1974 until 1979 — to legislate. I am proposing to legislate twice as fast after the JMB affair.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what the supervisory body could do. It has the ultimate power to revoke the licence of any bank to take deposits, and that is a very profound sanction indeed.
162
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the confidentiality requirements—I assume that he was referring to the relationship between auditors and supervisors—is that he will see them set out in annex 4 at the back of the White Paper.
Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people, in the City and throughout the country, will welcome the strengthening of the 1979 Act, particularly in bringing the banks under control and especially in view of the imminence of the Financial Services Bill?
Is he further aware that the flexibility between auditors and supervisors should ensure that any misdemeanour, or suggestion of misdemeanour, involving any deposit taker, be it a bank or any other deposit taker, will be immediately recognised? A two-way movement of information, from supervisors to auditors and from auditors to supervisors, will ensure that, if an investigation is necessary, it will be speedy and accurate. That should be wholeheartedly welcomed by the House and the City because it is essential to ensure that the integrity of the City is maintained.
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Communication between supervisors and auditors is an entirely new departure. Up to now, supervisors have not communicated with auditors and auditors have not communicated with supervisors. That will be changed, and I am grateful for the help of the various accountants' bodies in co-operating fully with the changes that we have in mind. Normally that communication will take place in the presence of the bank in question, but there is provision in exceptional circumstances for the communication to take place directly between the supervisors and auditors.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Chancellor aware that some of us argued long before the Banking Act 1979 was put on the statute book that the Bank of England should not be responsible for banking supervision? Will he therefore reconsider the role that the Bank of England will play? Although the establishment of the new board is a welcome step, will he confirm that all its members will be appointed by the Governor of the Bank of England? Does he agree that it would be much better if the Bank of England carried on its role as a central bank like other central banks and that the supervisory function should be carried out by an independent board? Will he consider that possibility? Will he also note that the other provisions in the statement are a welcome strengthening of the present regime?
Mr. Lawson: I note the points made by the hon. Gentleman. As a member of the Labour party, he was a supporter of the Bankers Act 1979. Appointments to the board of banking supervision will be made by the Governor, but they must be made with my approval. I believe that that answers his point. Whether the supervisory authority should be the central bank is a fair point. If the hon. Gentleman reads the annex to the White Paper about overseas experience, he will see that in some countries the supervisory authority is the central bank but that in others it is not. As we have always had the Bank of England as the supervisory authority, I believe that it is better to build on and strengthen that authority rather than to have a tremendous upheaval which I do not believe would be warranted or fruitful.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will be greatly welcomed,

163
because those of us who are anxious that the City's reputation should not be damaged by abuses of the system feel that the steps that he proposes will be helpful? Would it not be extraordinarily dangerous at this stage to set up an entirely separate organisation with no experience of those matters rather than to build on the Bank of England's foundation? Will he give us an assurance that we shall not have to wait for the legislation to be introduced before positive steps are taken to improve the present position?
Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend is correct, and I welcome his remarks. Steps have already been taken. Mr. Sidney Proctor has been appointed special adviser on supervision to the Governor. He is an extremely experienced and distinguished commercial banker who has retired and can devote a great deal of time to the matter. The Governor has also strengthened numerically and in other ways the Bank of England's banking supervision department. In addition, the establishment of the board of banking supervision will not have to wait for the legislation. The Governor proposes to get on with that straight away.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch): Bearing in mind that this statement arises in large measure out of the wanton negligence of Robin Leigh-Pemberton, the Governor of the Bank of England, how can anyone place any trust in a system of supervision organised by that appalling deadbeat? Is it not time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the bottle to tell the Prime Minister that Pemberton is not merely a disaster; he is a disgrace?
Mr. Lawson: There has been a great deal of talk about fraud of one kind or another. Fraud must be rooted out wherever it is found. Fortunately, it takes place only in exceptional circumstances in the City of London. It is wrong to imply otherwise.
The biggest fraud so far exposed is the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He poses as the man who got things moving. [Interruption.] Listen to this. He did not even start—Hansard will show that this is so—his seemingly unending series of allegations until after my statement of 17 July informing the House that the fraud squad had already been called in. By engaging in a scurrilous McCarthyite smear campaign under the cloak of parliamentary privilege to further his sordid political objectives, the hon. Gentleman is succeeding only in damaging the good name of the City to the delight of our competitors overseas, and in impeding the police in their attempt to bring wrongdoers to court, as the police have already pointed out to him. To describe the hon. Gentleman as a pest would be unfair to pests.
Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): While any illegalities must be vigorously hunted down and their perpetrators suitably punished——
Mr. Sedgemore: You snivelling little git.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I prefer not to hear all of that.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Those of us who most abhor the scandals in the City at present sometimes find the interventions of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) to be counter-productive. While any illegalities must be hunted down and their perpetrators suitably punished, should we not, even in the present political atmosphere, be careful to bear in mind that the Bank of England is an extremely important
164
national asset, particularly in the international sphere where on many occasions it has saved past Labour Governments? Indeed, if there is ever another, Labour Government, they will probably look to it to save them again. Should we not bear that in mind when scoring short-term party political points? My personal belief is that the Bank of England is, in the British context, the appropriate body to continue to conduct banking supervision.
Mr. Lawson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he will have heard, I reached the same conclusion.
Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East): Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain where market forces end and fraud begins?
Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, he is not fit to be a Member of the House.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it should be the duty of the auditors of the day to report independently to the bank's supervisors without the knowledge of the bank, if necessary?
Mr. Lawson: That is a difficult question, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. I believe that that would place considerable difficulties in the way of auditors. My conclusion is that it is better to adopt the normal procedure, and that the auditor and supervisor should have their dialogue in the presence of the bank in question, while reserving powers, if need be, in special circumstances for there to be a direct dialogue between auditors and supervisors without the presence of the bank.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Chancellor consider adopting in the Bill the principle that I have been advocating for defence contractors who make excess profits, whereby if an employee identifies fraud he should be compensated from the public purse?
Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous Committee member, as I know from experience on many occasions in Standing Committees on Finance Bills of old, and I am sure that he will find himself in Committee on this Bill, when he can make that point. However, I do not think that that would be a sensible proposal.
Mr. Peter Rees: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Governor of the Bank of England is a distinguished and honourable public servant who deserves better of the House than to be traduced by the vulgar criticisms of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)?
Mr. Lawson: I agree strongly with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is appalling how the hon. Gentleman seeks to traduce the Governor of the Bank of England, the Bank of England and the entire City of London to further his political objectives. It can mean only that people in Tokyo, Frankfurt, Zurich and other places will laugh all the way to their banks.
Mr. John Ryman: Will the Chancellor consider calmly and quietly for a moment what real sanctions there are, apart from the ultimate sanction of revocation of the licence, if the supervision board finds negligence or fraud? A complaint to the police takes a long time to investigate, and the resources of the fraud squad are far too limited to cope with the mass of complaints that emerge from time to time and that require thorough and lengthy investigation.
Mr. Lawson: As I announced, the legislation will create a new offence of misleading the supervisors for which there will be severe penalties, substantial fines or imprisonment. I announced as far back as July 1984 the Government's decision to set up a fraud investigation group, which was before the Johnson Matthey Bankers affair, and which has considerably strengthened the Government's and the authorities' resources for pursuing fraud wherever it may be.
Mr. Alex Fletcher (Edinburgh, Central): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but I should like to press him a little further on the question of resources. I am sure that he will agree that more staff will be needed and will have to be sufficiently qualified as accountants, lawyers, bankers and others, not just in banking supervision but in insurance and other things as well. Can he assure the House that, in attracting people of the right quality, there will be no Civil Service-type restrictions on the grades at which they can be employed so that they can come into the business and do a proper job?
Mr. Lawson: It is important that those who are engaged in the seeking out and prosecution of fraud, whether in the Department of Trade and Industry or in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, must be of sufficient calibre, and that is something that the Government will unstintingly seek to achieve.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Chancellor accept that his proposal will be seen by the public at large as following the old principle of "set a thief to catch a thief"? Will he suggest ways in which he might undertake some positive screening of the people who will be on the supervisory board?
Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member should know that I have suggested a considerable strengthening of the system of banking supervision, which has a good record. That is widely acknowledged throughout the world. The JMB affair was a lapse from its high standard. The measures that I have announced will strengthen it still futher and make it better than any other banking supervision system.
Mr. Tim Smith: Are not these proposals tough and comprehensive — much more so than anything proposed by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was a member? Is not the real danger that, if we go too far, 2 million jobs and £6 billion worth of exports will be threatened as financial services companies move offshore?
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right—there is a real danger of that. I do not ask anybody to pronounce now, but I hope that when hon. Members have read the White Paper and seen what is proposed they will desist from uninformed criticism, which can only be bad for the country.
Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West): I am sure that the Chancellor will agree that the various fraud cases about which we have heard recently have reduced in the eyes of the British public confidence in the City and all the other institutions. Does he agree that, in order to regain that confidence, it would be desirable to publish some of the findings of the new board of banking supervision? Will that happen, and, if so, to what extent?
Mr. Lawson: The board of banking supervision will make an independent report of its own, to be contained
166
within the annual report of the Bank of England. What it chooses to report will inevitably be governed by the laws concerning banking confidentiality.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill that he has announced today could be tough, along with the Financial Services Bill, and that the need for that is because of the huge financial conglomerates that will come about and may spawn things of which many in the City will not have experience? Bearing in mind also that the Bank of England is an adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would it not be a sensible move if the Chancellor imported into his Department some people of great expertise in the City—although not those who are likely to go back to the City, who may have something else to gain? Would it not be a good idea if three or four people who have spent their lives in the City and understand it and the Treasury were there so that they could give five to seven years of good advice to prevent many of these things from happening? In the end is it not right that the buck stops here? Whenever there is a scandal, the Government cannot say that it has nothing to do with them. If it is in the end, therefore, to do with Government, is it not better for the Chancellor to have his own team of experts on hand to handle his advice?
Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am quite sure that he means well, as he always does, but I have to say two things to him. First, I have every confidence in my officials in the Treasury. Secondly, the duty of supervising British banks is not laid upon the Treasury but is laid, and will be quite clearly laid by the legislation to which I have referred, on the Bank of England. Therefore, there will be a duty laid on the Bank of England to have supervisory staff of the appropriate quality and calibre and also to have independent outsiders to ensure that there is a strengthening of the enforcement of supervision at the top.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to protect the subsequent business of the House. The Chancellor announced that there will be a debate. However, I draw to the attention of the House the fact that there will be an opportunity tomorrow to debate this matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill under item no. 3.
Mr. Rob Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask that during the Christmas recess you should ask that your amplifiers should be looked at, given the language used by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), aimed at the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It described him as a snivelling little git. It was clearly audible in the Chamber and such language is clearly disgraceful and unparliamentary.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In a highly charged atmosphere I did not hear all that was said and I do not think that it was directed at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although it may not, in strict terms, be unparliamentary language, it is not the kind of language that we want to hear in civilised debate.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You probably heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch

167
(Mr. Sedgemore) that questions on these matters had not been put down until July. May I remind you that I put down questions on 23 October 1984? For that reason, I thought that there might be a chance to explain that in a question to the Chancellor.
Mr. Speaker: That is bad luck on the hon. Gentleman. However, he is one of the hon. Members who has applied for a debate on the Consolidated Fund, and he stands a very good chance of being called.
Mr. Richard Holt: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), Mr. Speaker. Whether or not the atmosphere was charged, the remark was clearly audible throughout the Chamber. Will you use your good offices, Mr. Speaker, to call upon the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. First, I do not know which hon. Gentleman made that comment. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, under this canopy I do not hear everything.
Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your reference to civilised debate in the House, I wonder whether you could strike a balance between an East End epithet and an allegation. I have told the truth. Since when has the truth been a McCarthyite smear?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman and to all other hon. Members that we should take great care about imputations concerning the characters of others who are not in the House.

Supplementary Benefit (Board and Lodging Payments)
4·3 pm
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the position concerning supplementary benefit board and lodging payments following the Court of Appeal decision last Friday.
As the House will be aware, the court upheld Mr. Justice Mann's decision in the Divisional Court on 31 July that there was no power to make two paragraphs of the regulations passed by the House in April. The court rejected a cross appeal that the Social Security Advisory Committee had not been properly consulted before the regulations were made.
The House will wish to know that the Government do not intend to appeal further. We shall take steps to identify from our records those cases in which arrears may be due because we did not meet the full charge, and to pay these arrears as soon as possible. To this end, we have sought and received from the court today further guidance on how such arrears should be assessed.
I should make it clear that the Court of Appeal judgment does not affect the current benefit position of those in board and lodging. Those payments are covered by the fresh regulations agreed by the House last month which came into effect on 25 November.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South): Is the Minister for Social Security aware that his statement, both in its nature and in its perfunctory length, is an insult to the House and, much more than that, is an insult to the thousands of elderly, handicapped and vulnerable people who have been illegally cheated and short-changed by the Government since the regulations came into effect? How dare the Minister come to the Dispatch Box to make that statement and utter not one word of apology or explanation for all the suffering that has been caused. It is not even as if the Government can complain that they have not been warned. Initially when the regulations were introduced the Social Security Advisory Committee heard from over 500 organisations that wrote to condemn the proposed regulations. It was the largest number ever to condemn such proposals, apart from those who wrote to condemn the Fowler reviews.
We should like the Minister to say, first, whether it is the case, as he claims in his statement, that the Government sought clarification from the court or whether, as we have been informed, the Government tried once again to put pressure on the court to weaken the judgment that had been delivered so as to deprive claimants. Will the Minister admit that if the Government had accepted the plain implications of the judgment—that cash limits also are illegal—not only would many claimants have been saved hardship but his Department's task in identifying those who should have repayments would have been made singularly easier?
Secondly, will the Minister tell us how his Department proposes to trace those who are owed money? Does he understand that it would be completely unacceptable and grossly unjust to place the burden of the claim upon individuals rather than upon his Department in seeking to identify them?

169
Thirdly, how far back does the Department intend the repayments to go? The clear implication of the Court of Appeal's judgment is that everything that the Government have done on board and lodging since the freeze in September 1984 has been illegal as well as completely unjust and unworkable and that everybody who has had a claim since then may be entitled in law to a refund. May we therefore have an assurance from the Minister that the cases will be dealt with on that basis? May we also have an assurance that the local authorities, who may have been giving topping-up payments, will have reimbursed to them the several hundreds of thousands of pounds that it has cost them and that they and the claimants will be compensated for all the problems that have been caused?
At this point in this extraordinary saga of incompetence, arrogance, injustice and illegality, will the Minister tell us what confidence anybody can have—indeed, what confidence he has—in the legality of the present regulations, which are also being challenged in the courts and which we have told him repeatedly we do not believe, meet the basic issues raised by the Cotton case? Do the Government yet recognise that the nature of the problem is the increase in homelessness and the increase in the numbers who are in need of care and that the Government should be seeking to help, not to penalise, those whose problems their policies have at best exacerbated and often may have caused, especially those who are physically and mentally handicapped, who stand to be affected next April by the present regulations?
Finally, will the Minister tell the House that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is now considering withdrawing the regulations—not, as before, in order to do nothing whatever for months and then to rush them through, without consultation, as an emergency at the last minute, but so that he may properly consult his own Social Security Advisory Committee and the many organisations that are anxious to help to solve the problem by tackling its source, not by punishing its victims?
Mr. Newton: May I take the hon. Lady's questions roughly in reverse order. It was precisely because we were concerned to protect those vulnerable people to whom she referred that we sought to introduce fresh regulations a month ago. If the hon. Lady considers both the judgment and what I said when I introduced the regulations last month she will realise that the judgment has vindicated our decision to ensure a clear position for claimants when the judgment was delivered. Otherwise it would have called into question many of the payments that are currently being made to those who are in residential care and nursing homes. In that sense the Government are very aware of the problems expressed by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
The hon. Lady asked about the legality of the present regulations and compensation for local authorities, an issue that has been raised by at least one local authority. She will know that both issues are the subject of current legal proceedings and the House will understand when I say that I do not think it right to comment further on such matters.
170
The hon. Lady also referred to the freeze regulations that preceded the April 1985 regulations. I remind her that that was not a specific issue and the position is not on all fours with the April 1985 regulations.
The main thrust of the hon. Lady's points involved the Government's proposals to pay the arrears and their purpose in seeking clarification from the court this morning. The Government intend and expect to be able to identify the relevant claimants from the records. Ever since the original Cotton judgment in July, the Government have ensured, for obvious reasons, that such cases were kept separately marked in local offices so that we could trace and identify cases quickly should the need arise. Arrears have, of course, already been paid in cases affected by the time limits. We shall act with equal promptness to identify cases and pay arrears in relation to the judgment on financial limits.
The Government were particularly anxious to achieve clarification on two particularly important issues, and I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that that was done in good faith this morning. First, we sought clarification as to whether there was any maximum at all in the light of the judgment made last week. As I explained to the House when this matter was last debated in November, it was not entirely clear whether the outcome would mean that the old local limit system under the 1983 regulations came back into effect or whether there would no longer be an effective maximum between April and November. That point has been clarified by the court and there is no maximum between 29 April and 24 November in these cases.
The other point, to which the hon. Lady will probably attach more importance, is that one possible interpretation of last week's judgment was that young people would not qualify as boarders and that they would have to be reduced to the non-householder rate from 29 April to 24 November. It has been established that it is proper for these people to be regarded as boarders and therefore to pay them as boarders and to discharge the obligation on arrears as soon as possible.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: While I accept that public money was being extracted by many people, will my hon. Friend nevertheless bear in mind that a minority have suffered gravely as a result of the regulations? The people who have particularly suffered are those who have no family of their own and have made a new family by living for some years in lodgings. I trust that he will remember those people because they need his help.
Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall bear that group in mind, as we sought to do with the regulations that have now been partly overturned and in the fresh regulations that were brought before the House in November. We shall continue to do everything to protect those people.
Mr. Frank Field: On behalf of Simon Cotton, my constituent who took the Government to court over this matter, I thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon.
The Minister must be aware that his policy has been declared illegal and unlawful, twice by the courts and that that policy has resulted in some young people being made homeless, many being underpaid and others moving around the country in an attempt to claim benefit. Will the hon. Gentleman explain what measures he will take to

171
trace the claimants? He spoke about keeping records since the Cotton judgment. What steps is the Minister taking to trace the 60,000 or 70,000 claimants who attempted to claim benefit prior to the Cotton judgment?
I would like the Minister to look to the future. He confidently asserts that the Government's current regulations are lawful, but he must be aware that the Cotton success paves the way for the present legislation to be challenged in the courts. He must also be aware, and should have told the House, that when the Government's lawyers said that they might appeal to the House of Lords, the Lord Chief Justice said that if they had the nerve to return he would reject that application out of hand.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Friday 13 December Camden council obtained leave for a judicial review against the current regulations? There is a large question mark over the Government's current proposals. Surely it would be advisable for the Minister to follow the advice that is constantly offered by the Opposition. In our opinion, he cannot gain the powers by regulation; he needs to seek primary legislation and he will gain the Opposition's support if he deals with the abuse that undoubtedly exists, particularly if he concentrates on the landlords.
Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the characteristic generosity of his opening remark. However, I did acknowledge, although I did not refer directly to Camden, that there were further court cases in process. That was why I did not feel that it was correct to comment, as they are manifestly sub judice.
I have already explained what action will be taken to trace claimants. Plainly, we cannot directly trace through the records people who did not establish claims, and for whom no record exists. But if cases arise they will be considered, though I emphasise that in these cases, as in others, it is not for Ministers but for adjudication officers to decide what the entitlement may be within the current available guidance on the law.
Mr. Robin Squire: I welcome the news that my hon. Friend is not proceeding further with legislation in that particular aspect of the regulations. None the less, as other areas of the regulations are being challenged, will he undertake that if or when he is convinced that the current regulations are flawed he will come back either with new regulations or, if necessary, with new primary legislation?
Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government will continue to ensure that their obligations to Parliament and to the court's rulings in such matters will be faithfully adhered to. As all hon. Members will agree, the Government responded very rapidly in the appropriate cases to the original Cotton judgment. By my statement today I hope that I have made it clear that the Government intend to respond with equal rapidity to the Court of Appeal judgment last week.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I also welcome the Minister's statement, although I reiterate the opposition of the alliance to a system that is particularly pernicious in the way that it affects young people.
Let me press the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The Minister said that his Department was contacting the claimants who had
172
outstanding money due. Does that mean that claimants will be written to individually? When will the local offices get confirmation that that is what the Minister requires of them?
Can the hon. Gentleman also say how much money is at stake, as my arithmetic suggests that a considerable sum of public money is involved? In future, when the Minister is considering changes in the system of delivering benefit—everyone can argue about the benefit levels, which can be changed by secondary legislation and nobody objects to that—will he learn a lesson and make changes by primary legislation so that the implications can be properly rehearsed in the House?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has made that point in several different forums within the past few hours and he will have heard what my right hon. Friend said to him recently in another forum on that wider matter. We shall certainly do our best to contact claimants by whatever means. Writing will normally be the most appropriate means—
Mr. Frank Dobson: What addresses will the Minister send the letters to?
Mr. Newton: I shall deal with the intervention from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) when I have dealt with the original question.
Writing will normally be the most appropriate means, and that will be a responsibility of our local offices. We are proceeding urgently with the issue of instructions to our local offices, but at present I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact time by which those instructions will go out. However, I point to the precedent earlier in the year followng the original Cotton judgment, when we acted within a week to get instructions out and completed the payment of arrears within two months.
For obvious reasons, I cannot at present give the hon. Gentleman estimates of the numbers of claimants who will be entitled to arrears or the amount involved, but he may like to know that, in the case of the time limits, we have paid arrears in 8,500 cases, and the total amount of money involved has been just under £250,000.
Mr. Roger Gale: Does my hon. Friend recall that the regulations were originally introduced to curb the abuse of a system which was designed to help the elderly but which was being abused by unscrupulous rest home owners? Does he also recall that young people were being exploited by unscrupulous landlords? Many Conservative Members believe that my hon. Friend acted entirely honourably and are extremely grateful for the action that he took last summer. Will he assure the House that he and his Department will take whatever action is necessary to prevent any recurrence of the sort of abuse that we faced last summer?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I assure him that we shall continue to prevent abuse in this area. I am also grateful to him for acknowledging that, whatever the concern about the policy in the past, it must be right for the Government firmly to hold to their obligations to the courts and the findings of the courts in the way that I have indicated this afternoon.
Perhaps I can do the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras the courtesy of responding to his sedentary intervention. Clearly, we shall seek to correspond with people at the addresses that we have on file, but there will

173
manifestly be a problem if we are unable to trace claimants. However, by making this statement, I hope that they will become aware of what has happened. We are now talking not about people who have necessarily been moved on but about cases in respect of the financial limits.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: With my experience of being Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Dick Crossman 17 or 18 years ago, I have the feeling that Alan Mane or the late Dame Muriel Riddesdell and their lawyers would have warned the Secretary of State. At any time did any of the hon. Gentleman's lawyers or senior civil servants give him some kind of premonition of the Cotton judgment and that what he was doing might be ultra vires? My experience of the Department was that those lawyers, who are jolly clever and competent, would have warned the Minister. Did not they do so in this case, and did not the Minister have an inkling that this would happen?
Mr. Newton: The convention is that Ministers do not normally refer in detail to the advice that they receive, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Ministers—
Mr. Dalyell: Were you warned?
Mr. Newton: In view of the imputation that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make, I would be grateful if he would listen to the end of my sentence. I hope that he will accept from me that it would be inconceivable—if he does not, I can only assure him with all the emphasis at my command—that neither I, the Secretary of State nor anyone else would deliberately have proceeded to maintain regulations that we were advised were unlawful.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Is it not somewhat bizarre that, whenever the High Court rules against a Government Department, the Opposition shout that the Minister concerned has broken the law, as if that Minister
174
had deliberately offended against the criminal code? Surely the reality is that English law is now so complex that there will inevitably be occasions when the High Court will be asked to interpret legislation and the actions of Government Departments. On occasions it will rule against Government Departments and on others it will rule in favour. The protection for us all is that there is a High Court that seeks to protect the interests of all citizens by interpreting the laws and ensuring that nothing unlawful is carried out.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with what he says. A number of people both inside and outside the House may have overlooked the fact that these regulations were submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in the normal way. Their vires were not questioned by the Joint Committee and they were passed by Parliament in an affirmative vote.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: In view of the admitted difficulties involved in tracing the claimants, will the Minister give an assurance that he will give generous time limits so that people can claim the arrears?
Mr. Newton: We will expect to deal with this in as open and fair a way as possible to make sure that we pay arrears to those to whom they are due. The House can certainly have my undertaking that we shall do that.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is to do with the answer that we have just received—
Mr. Speaker: Is it a continuation of it?
Mr. Faulds: No, it is a quite different point, but it is relevant to what we have just been told. Can we for once break with the conventions of the House and agree that, since they cannot defend themselves, the response to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) should come from the Civil Service Box?
Mr. Speaker: The point of order was addressed to me, not to the Minister, and it is not a matter for me.

Colliery Review Tribunal
4·26 pm
Mr. John Ryman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the continuing failure of the independent colliery review tribunal to deal with urgent appeals relating to collieries threatened with closure immediately after Christmas."
In Bate's colliery in Blyth, 1,400 men will be made redundant if it is closed, as proposed by the NCB. I recognise that I must persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is so urgent that it should have priority over the business that has already been arranged. In view of recent developments, my respectful submission is that, although this tribunal was set up by the NCB in October this year, since then it has been quite impossible to obtain any information from the Government as to the procedure of that tribunal which will hear appeals against pit closures.
I have asked the Secretary of State for Energy and the Leader of the House several questions about the procedure of this tribunal, but both Ministers, doing their incompetent best, were quite unable to answer them. No one knows how this tribunal will function or even how it will be contacted. We do not know whether it will sit in London or in the region. Consequently, it is quite impossible to make adequate preparations to present a case against pit closure, either by the unions involved or the Blyth Valley council which is vitally interested in the outcome of these appeals. No statement has been made by the Government and no opportunity has been given for a debate, as a result of which the whole thing is extremely unsatisfactory and is surrounded in mystery.
The urgency of my application is demonstrated by the fact that Bate's colliery will close on 27 December, just two days after Christmas Day, and I hope to persuade you—I appreciate the high onus of proof on me—to allow this matter to be discussed this afternoon or this evening, because unless we have some information about the work of the colliery review tribunal, it will be quite impossible to prepare a case.
The NCB has been conducting a deliberate, systematic and fraudulent campaign to delay these procedures as long as possible, in the hope that, with Christmas overtaking events, the coal mining community in my constituency will then not have sufficient time to do anything about it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter seriously before coming to a decision.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the continuing failure of the independent colliery review tribunal to deal with urgent appeals relating to collieries threatened with closure immediately after Christmas".
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but, as he mentioned himself, my duty under Standing Order No. 10 is to consider whether a subject should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter which he has raised meets all of the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, if proceedings on the Motion relating to Register of Members' Interests have not been disposed of before Ten o'clock:—

(1) Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put the Question on any Amendment which may have been moved, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any other Amendments selected by him which may then be moved, and on the Main Question or the Main Question as amended; and

(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), the Motion relating to Water may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

4·29 pm
Mr. David Alton: I do not intend to detain the House but this is a unique opportunity to raise an important procedural principle. I welcome the decision to change the order of business this evening so that there might be four Divisions on the amendments that you have selected, Mr. Speaker.
This is an important principle and I welcome the precedent which I hope will be extended to other occasions. We take the view that, apart from the Queen's Speech, which is the one chance every year when we are able to debate a second amendment and vote upon it, we far too rarely have the opportunity to debate and vote on other shades of opinion. Far too often our views are polarised and we are forced to accept black and white issues when there are often many shades of grey. Back Benchers who may hold a dissenting view rarely have the opportunity to table their amendments or debate them, so Front Bench views are often the ones that are set in concrete, and Back Benchers are invariably forced to vote upon them.
The present arrangements do not allow for the multi-party system which now operates. We have a multi-party system but it is stuck in a two-track groove. At present, even though our amendments may be tabled and appear on the Order Paper, they are not printed in the Official Report, thus the public are unlikely to learn of views other than those of the two Front Benches.
This issue was last examined in 1976 by the Procedure Select Committee. At that time, many Labour Back Benchers supported our view. I know that many hon. Members agree that such opportunities should be provided on other occasions. It should not be necessary to bring the Leader of the House here to table a business motion. We believe that such provision could be left to the discretion of Mr. Speaker. The Standing Order could be changed so that Mr. Speaker selects two or more amendments which might be voted upon automatically at 10 o'clock. It would be in the interests of all Members not to be penned in by the practice of always voting for or against set piece positions. If what we are debating today were common practice, it would improve the quality of our debates and political life. I support the motion.
4·32 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Courtesy requires me to acknowledge what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has said. I am sure he would not expect me to go beyond that except to observe that, the

177
longer I talk at this Box, the more I shall eat into the time available for the debate on Members' interests. I leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.

Fire Precautions (Amendment)
4·33 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stetchford): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to extend provision to hospitals, nursing homes, elderly persons homes, mental institutions and similar premises; to limit the time available to occupiers or owners under the Act for bringing premises up to standard; to make further provision relating to the installation of sprinkler systems in public buildings and other places of public assembly; to ban the use of polyurethane foam in furniture; and to provide for educational and publicity programmes.
It is a sad irony that it requires a major disaster before the House amends the fire regulations. This year, we have had the Ringway airport disaster and the Bradford football ground fire.
Last Christmas in Bury, Greater Manchester, a family of eight and a family friend died in a tragic fire accident because Christmas wrappings fell into the fire grate and set the suite of furniture ablaze. Thus nine people died because of toxic fumes given off by the polyurethane foam that was used in that suite of furniture. It is a chilling prophesy, but it is likely that this Christmas we shall once again read of young children or indeed whole families dying in fires in similar circumstances.
The Home Office, in its review of fire policy in 1980, argued:
"loss of life through fire is insignificant".
However, in 1984, 700 deaths were caused by fires in England and Wales—550 took place in the home and approximately three quarters of them were caused by the poisonous fumes given off by smouldering polyurethane foam. The Home Office, in its review of the Fire Regulations Act 1971, stated:
"Although our present arrangements may bear favourable comparison with other countries, there is no room for complacency."
That is right, but the sad truth is that the Home Office has been extremely complacent in updating our fire regulations.
The deaths in Bury and, to some extent, at Manchester airport would not have taken place if the lessons of another disaster in Manchester had been learnt — the fire in Woolworth's in May 1979. Ten people died and a further 48 were injured. That disaster led to demands from Members of Parliament and the city of Manchester that something be done to tackle the problem of poisonous fumes as a considerable number of the deaths were caused by the fumes emitted from blazing furniture in the furniture department. It was said that the fire regulations were difficult to enforce and that it was difficult to prosecute Woolworth's because it had not been given time to bring its fire precautions up to scratch.
That is one of the reasons why this Bill would prevent prolongation of the period during which dwelling or company was allowed to bring its precautions up to scratch, thus preventing what happened with Woolworth's.
Woolworth's learnt from that disaster and, on reopening the store, ceased to stock polyurethane foam-filled furniture and installed sprinklers. The Home Office, having threatened regulations, brought in the modest regulation—the so-called cigarette test—which tests whether furniture will catch fire when a cigarette is dropped on it. The Home Office failed to introduce the other part of the regulations which were promised—the so-called match test.

179
The regulations which the Home Office brought in, nominally as a result of the Woolworth's fire, would not have stopped that fire taking place. They did not stop the fire taking place in Bury last year. The majority of the 500 deaths due to polyurethane foam-filled furniture could have been prevented, however, by adequate regulations in 1980 and if the Home Office had not acted so complacently.
This Bill would bring in the match test and other more stringent fire precautions for furniture and lead to the banning of the use of polyurethane foam in furniture. The Bradford football disaster is still fresh in the memories of hon. Members. Fifty-two people died but many believe that lives could have been saved if sprinklers had been installed at the ground. That is why my Bill would require the installation of sprinklers in relevant circumstances. There is another simple lesson to be learnt from Bradford. Self-regulation, which Bradford operated, does not work. The Home Office has argued that efficient precautions are the most cost-effective way in which to ensure the safety of people and property, but it is going in precisely the opposite direction by attempting to introduce self-regulation. My Bill insists that regulation should be extended to elderly persons' homes, mental institutions, hospitals and nursing homes.
Most people's thoughts turn to children and the home at Christmas. The House ought to turn its attention to the protection of children by introducing more adequate regulations to prevent the outbreak of fire. The Fire Brigades Union has said that the Bill will reduce deaths and injuries. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill as this is an important issue throughout the year.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. James Lamond and Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Tony Lloyd accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to extend provision to hospitals, nursing homes, elderly persons homes, mental institutions and similar premises; to limit the time available to occupiers or owners under the Act for bringing premises up to standard; to make further provision relating to the installation of sprinkler systems in public buildings and other places of public assembly; to ban the use of polyurethane foam in furniture; and to provide for educational and publicity programmes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
ESTIMATES DAY
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1985–86
  Class II, Vote 7

    Overseas Aid
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Overseas Development Administration) on the official United Kingdom Aid Programme including capital subscriptions, other contributions and payments under guarantees to certain multilateral development banks and other bodies; subscriptions and grants in aid to certain international and regional organisations; bilateral capital aid and technical co-operation; refugee and other relief assistance; the cost of in-house Scientific Units; assistance, including grants in aid, to certain UK based institutions and voluntary agencies; loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation; and pensions and allowances in respect of overseas service.—[Mr. Raison.]
    4·41 pm
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: We are approaching the festive season and this is a very good opportunity to discuss the wants of others. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee considered the famine in Africa and visited five countries. We were deeply depressed by much of what we saw and impressed by the knowledge that a great deal of the horror and the disaster could have been avoided.
    I say that the disaster could have been avoided, but I do not imply that the Governments or people of those countries have been stupid, negligent or idle. We must not understimate the real difficulties that they face while we are in our comfortable society. Many of them have a climate which is not especially favourable to agriculture and they have been plagued with drought for almost 10 years, which has successively eroded the defences of the people who live there. They have lost their land, their beasts, their houses, their possessions and finally their money. They are in no way able to protect themselves from disasters unaided.
    Those factors have been made worse by a rapidly rising population which would have had its effect on what is at best marginal agriculture, even if natural disaster had not taken its toll. Political circumstances after the colonial era have always been uncertain. The roll call of successful and unsuccessful coups and rebellions would have been enough to distract any Government from peaceful and progressive purposes. Political reasons have often determined the distribution of such food as they have. It has often been directed to the urban population and close political supporters rather than to the weak and poor rural populations far away from main towns whose interests have been correspondingly neglected.
    They all have an administrative apparatus which is far too weak to withstand the difficulties that they have experienced, and it is often far weaker than they themselves suppose. The Select Committee was struck by repeatedly being told in one country that the administration was so widespread and flexible that instructions from the centre could be transmitted instantly to the furthest villages in the land. I do not know how anybody could have harboured such an illusion. The telephones did not work

    181
    and communications were disrupted by rebellion. Whatever administrative apparatus that had been left behind by the colonial power had been completely eroded. The skills and communications necessary to run a country which needs a great deal of running simply did not exist. Immensely difficult choices have to be made in these weakened circumstances in such matters as exchange valuations, subsidies and resource allocations—choices that any country might find difficult. Above all, we found that agricultural policies discouraged farmers and made it less likely that they would grow the crops on which the rest of the country depends.
    Any right hon. or hon. Member could have divined the problems that I have described, but we are entitled to say that more effective policies shall be followed in future. The Select Committee was encouraged by the fact that the countries concerned now recognise, especially in view of the Harare declaration, that different policies regarding agriculture would be in the interests of all of their countries. I hope that such decisions will now be taken, difficult though they may be. I hope that longer-term development can take priority over short-term expedience.
    I was glad that, in their observations on our report, the Government recognised fully the greater importance of development as opposed to emergency aid. To what extent has our development aid programme been lamed by emergency aid expenditure on famine? My right hon. Friend the Minister, whose wise conduct of these affairs we all admire, says that development aid has been affected very little or not at all. He said in July last year that the development programme had not been affected by emergency aid. He repeated that statement in October. I find it hard to share his optimism.
    We all recognise that there is slippage in the ODA programme. We cannot expect all of its schemes to run exactly on time and it is necessary to budget for a slippage towards the end of the year. If slippage must occur, however, must it amount to £86·5 million? That rather large slip is the estimated United Kingdom expenditure on famine relief in Africa. However, I freely concede that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development could contradict my figures, because they are so difficult to calculate. The figures on which we rely are concocted from different sources and on different dates, so a double estimate or no estimate could cover the same prices.
    Nevertheless, it is unreal to say that the £86 million that we have been forced to expend on famine relief will not affect the development aid programme. In the last resort, money for food aid must be deducted from development aid. Certainly part of the money voted to the ODA was originally destined for emergency aid, but not to the extent of £86 million.
    The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs concluded that it would only be fair to the development aid programme if new money were brought in. I am sorry that apparently that has not been possible. I say apparently, because it is difficult to follow how the calculations are made. Perhaps the emergency aid has not harmed the development aid programme to the extent that I have suggested. If I am wrong, it is because I cannot understand how the ODA arrives at its figures. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's reassurances.
    There was some new money. It was used by the Royal Air Force in its effective airlift to the difficult areas of
    182
    Ethiopia, which ended today. That exercise cost £8·25 million, and no doubt has done much good in areas that would otherwise have starved. It is a tribute to the RAF that, as usual, the programme was carried out so efficiently. It is a tribute to the Ministry of Defence, which is not everyone's favourite when it comes to charity, that it provided the money.
    The European Community Dublin summit vote of 1·2 million tonnes was a new and welcome move. The United Kingdom has participated fully in the delivery of that grain.
    We provide more in famine relief to Africa through the European Community than we do bilaterally. This year bilaterally we gave £42 million worth of food aid and £47 million through the European Community. The Community made a slow start and it was rightly criticised by the Committee and others for that. However, the Community has now got its act together. The various titles of EC committees do not suggest by name that they address themselves specifically to these matters, but undoubtedly the problem has been gripped by the organisation and it appears now that the administration is running smoothly. I am sure that that is welcome.
    However, I have criticisms of the European Community. It must realise that famine relief is not a method of supporting European agriculture, principally because of the cost. One year's storage of a tonne of grain costs £25. The cost of shipping that grain to Ethiopia is £250–10 times as much, as hon. Members will readily calculate. To store the grain indefinitely, or even eventually to throw it away, would cost only half as much as it would to give the grain to the starving countries. The European Community's preferred policy of transporting European grain is not in the best interests of the needy countries or of Europe.
    The second reason why it is better to buy grain abroad, perhaps from the developing countries, is that the aid arrives more quickly. If the grain is bought nearby, it can be transported quicker than by sending it from Europe. If it is bought from a developing country there is a double benefit, because the country is provided with the foreign exchange that it so badly needs.
    According to the recent harvest reports, stocks will be available in Africa this year. I hope that the system of buying those surplus stocks and sending them to needy areas next year will be adopted. I believe that the required food stocks will be available, whether from American, European or local sources. Then the main problem will return. The real reason why people starve to death in Africa and elsewhere is not because they are hungry, although that has something to do with it, but because of poverty. India, which is now an exporter of food, suffers as much from malnutrition, and death from hunger, as it did when it was an importer of food. That is a problem with which it is difficult to cope.
    My third criticism of the European Community is that it relies too much upon food aid and attaches too much importance to it. If food aid is supplied instead of foreign exchange, that is indeed as good as foreign exchange and should not be despised. But the Governmmt reply to the Foreign Affairs Committee states:
    "Most food aid from the European Community is given to recipient Governments to sell in urban markets."
    That activity will continue to create more difficulties for the provision of long-term agriculture development. I am glad that

    183
    "the Governmnt will continue to press for more rigorous appraisal and co-ordination of non-emergency food aid."
    During the past 18 months, we have learnt many lessons from the crisis that has engulfed parts of Africa. One lesson is that he who gives quickly gives twice. I hope that the ODA's emergency unit, which has earned much praise for its flexible and quick action, will be provided with more funds.
    The famine in Africa is a nightmare for the world. It is terrible for Africa and we have a guilty conscience because we believe that we should have seen it coming and that we should have done more. It is a blessing that the famine is now receding, but let us hope that our precautions for the future will ensure that it does not return.
    4·49 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) and his Select Committee have done a great service to the House. They have produced two reports, one of which appeared earlier in the year and provided a detailed survey of famine in Africa. Secondly, there is the report which considers the Winter Estimates and casts some light on the dark and difficult area of Government statistics. The House has been well served also by the all-party group on overseas development, which published its own critical document. I hope that its severe criticism of the Government in some respects will not cause the Government to do anything other than benefit from the challenging thoughts and ideas which it contains.
    It has been said by a United Nations official:
    "The rains have recovered; Africa has not",
    and that is currently the position. A number of the countries most severely affected by drought have experienced considerable improvements in weather conditions. Some of them, by a combination of that and food aid, are now in a much better position for the immediate future than they were months ago. Other countries continue to experience climatic difficulties. All still face the fundamental, long-term problem of dealing with what could be recurring famine and recurring hunger if we do not ensure that proper development assistance is given to them.
    Aid at the basic level of subsistence farming is the priority which emerges from the Select Committee's report and from the all-party report to which I have referred. It is upon that that we seek to press the Government, and others may do so in their contributions. A restoration of the priority of basic agriculture work and assistance to the farmer to grow his own food must be the key to the solution of the problem that exists in most of the countries about which we are talking. That has implications for the domestic policies of those countries as well as for the aid which we provide.
    Unfortunately, aid has suffered in the very areas in which we should be most concerned. Aid to basic development has suffered at the expense of other considerations, such as trade-related assistance of various forms, which has as its priority as much the promotion of our own trade, however desirable that may be, as the interests and basic agriculture of the country concerned.
    The all-party group quoted a ministerial comment that it was to become policy to give greater weight in the allocation of our aid to political, industrial and commercial considerations alongside our basic
    184
    developmental objectives. I submit that we should not be giving greater weight in the allocation of our aid to political, industrial and commercial considerations, however attractive those are in other contexts. If we do — and we must remember that, even if all our ambitions are achieved, our aid budget will remain limited—we shall not best serve the interests of the poor and hungry in the countries that we want to assist. Our industries and exporters can fight their battles and their campaigns for trade, and they can and should be assisted by various governmental activities, such as export credit, that are relevant. However, such considerations should not be a guiding factor, given the absolute priority of assisting long-term development. It is against that background that there have been cuts, which the Government have admitted, in long-term research staff, long-term development staff and in activities that are most relevant to helping basic subsistence farming. The developing trade-related side of aid activities is one area which has inhibited the basic and important work of development aid, and it is one that should be reversed.
    The second factor which has played a part in limiting the amount of basic development aid has been, as the hon. Member for Stroud said when he opened the debate, famine relief itself. I do not think that anyone questions the competence with which the Government tackled the task of providing famine relief when they got down to it. Many of us, including the hon. Gentleman, criticised the Government for the time that they took to get the show on the road. However, when the real commitment was made, the work which was done was excellent. Plenty of tribute is due to the Overseas Development Administration and those who work within it for the way in which the work was carried out.
    The criticism that emerges again and again is the effect that the diversion of resources will have on the rest of the work of the aid programme, especially basic development work. In the Select Committee's report on the winter Estimates there is a pointer to the difficulty of identifying what the money would otherwise have been spent on if it had not been diverted to aid. It is the Minister's plea that most of the famine relief moneys were found out of existing development programmes and that the development programmes of other areas of the world Ix ere not raided for it. It is claimed that the resources were found from slippage, from money which was not spent on other projects. It is extremely difficult to identify where the moneys would otherwise have been spent. The Select Committee and others who have commented have all said that we must assume that most of the moneys would have been spent on more basic development work of the sort which is so lacking. It is in that area that a greater commitment is required from the Government.
    The public are aware of that. They are aware of the general problem and of the specific difficulties which arise. They appreciate the need for basic development work. Voluntary aid organisations have done much to inform the British public of the nature of the problem. Indeed, they are doing more and more all the time. That is another reason why development education work should be supported.
    There has been a tremendous out-pouring of public generosity. I have in mind the Live Aid movement and all its associated activities, and the related boost in the work of almost all the voluntary agencies which work in the field. Impressive work has been done by schoolchildren,

    185
    in many instances of a notably well-informed sort. Associated with studies at school into the conditions of the countries which need assistance, they have undertaken voluntary work to target specific help to particular overseas projects. I find it moving to see how young people and children have become involved in this work and how they have set out to inform themselves and come to understand more about it.
    I recall the 20,000 who participated in a lobby of Parliament. That is an example of massive public support and commitment. I can remember—I am sure others can as well—the days when one canvassed during elections and found that it was common to meet someone on a doorstep who asked, "Why is all this money being given to other countries? Shouldn't we concentrate on our problems at home?" I find that that is said less and less and more and more people understand that the fate of the hungry in the world is something about which they should be concerned on moral grounds. They understand also that they have every reason to be concerned about the issue if they care about the future peace and stability of the world.
    A genuine transformation in public opinion has taken place. There will always be those who take the narrowest and most nationalistic, short-sighted view, but there has been a major change in public opinion upon which the Government, Foreign Office Ministers and Treasury Ministers should build. The task is easier for them now in justifying the enlargement of their budgets than it has been during certain periods in the past. There is a generosity in the public spirit which they should be seeking to match.
    It is an improvement that the Minister, in his November announcement, suggested that there would be level funding for the overseas aid budget in the next few years if his inflation assumptions were accurate. I am not convinced about the accuracy of his assumptions about inflation, but the announcement showed some willingness on his part.
    Many of us who take part in this debate will want to see Britain move positively nearer to the United Nations target, from which we have slipped back so disastrously over the past few years. If there are signs that we are to move in the right direction, let us seize on them. However, inflation is always higher than the forecasts of Governments, and I fear that we shall not achieve level funding and that we shall not see positive movement in the direction of the United Nations target.
    Whatever is to be the amount of money that we spend, it is crucial that we examine how we spend it. We must assert the priority of basic agricultural development work. I accept that many other things are needed apart from the aid that we can provide. The task of tackling the debt problems of the poorest countries is a high priority for international considerations as well as for Britain's. The hon. Member for Stroud made a telling comment when he said that people die not merely because they are hungry, but because they are poor. There is the problem of poor countries and the problem of poor sections of countries' populations. That is one of the reasons why Socialist and Marxist philosophies often have a certain appeal in the poorest countries. Any Government of any poor country who took a narrow view of what the state should do would probably not be serving the interests of their people. However, it is discovered quickly that when Socialist and Marxist philosophies are implemented in some of the
    186
    poorest countries, they have a tendency to produce an enlargement of rather top-heavy and bureaucratic state machinery and not equalisation or a reduction of poverty.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: What about China?
    Mr. Beith: China is engaged in a remarkable process of reform. It is cleaning out its administrative system. It is a process which many of us admire. Labour Members should not be so quick to become defensive. I have raised a problem which they should recognise. Different political philosophies face different difficulties in the Third world. I contend that those which are heavily Socialist in their emphasis tend to end up producing a top-heavy state machinery and buttressing that by curtailing individual liberty to protect that machinery. Many of them do not reduce poverty.
    The result is not usually the eradication of that individual poverty which makes many people hungry. Those countries that forswear the Socialist path, stick to a pure capitalist course and make the assumption that the power of the state should be narrowed tend to make no contribution to the eradication of poverty, or make a contribution limited to the success of those who are able to prosper under a capitalist system. No political philosophy has provided a ready-made solution for the Third world. In all the countries new routes have to be found which embrace a recognition of what the state has to do, with some awareness of its limitations and dangers. It is significant that the simple solutions proffered by both sides of traditional politics have not solved the problems.
    There are problems of policy for many of the countries concerned, not just in general political philosophy but in areas such as agriculture. The Harare declaration has been mentioned. That is one sign that there is a realisation in some of the countries that agricultural policies designed mainly to produce cash crops were, in most cases, the wrong avenue to pursue. Different avenues will now have to be taken and there will have to be changed priorities.
    Although many of the areas of policy will be relevant to the solution of the problem of famine, it will continue to occur in countries where climatic conditions have dramatic effects unless we cater for those problems by contributing to basic agricultural development in a way that allows people to produce their own food and feed their own families. That must be the priority of overseas aid policy, and I urge it upon the Government.
    5·11 pm
    Mr. John Wilkinson: I declare an interest in this subject because I serve as chairman of the British-Somali parliamentary group and of the Horn of Africa Council. Both of those bodies are acutely concerned about the famine in the north-eastern part of the African continent.
    In November 1984 I visited the refugee camps along the Ethiopian border with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and a former Member of the House, Colonel Billy McLean. As a consequence of that visit, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development was able to announce a £1 million emergency programme for the relief of refugees within the eastern part of Sudan within a calendar month.
    The visit brought home to me a fact that will be all too deeply embedded in the consciousness of right hon. and hon. Members, that in so many instances famine is as

    187
    much a consequence of human evil, of internecine bloodshed, of civil war and politics as it is of the accidents of geography, topography, of agriculture and of climate. It is to the political dimension that I shall address my remarks.
    When we visited the camps on the eastern frontier of the Sudan there were, at that stage of the emergency, two clear categories of refugees coming across. They were coming across like ships Out of the mist. One saw groups of tattered persons and families, sometimes with animals and sometimes without. The Eritreans had a common story to tell. They had been bombed and napalmed out of their villages and in some instances actually driven out of their villages by the operations of the Ethiopian army. If left to themselves the food problem would have been tolerable but the combination of civil war and an adverse harvest were insupportable and they had to move away into Sudan.
    The Tigrean refugees told a somewhat different tale. Most of them were elderly or extremely young. The able-bodied seemed to have been left behind to till the fields but insufficient crops were likely to be grown to support whole families. Within five minutes of our arrival an old man died at our feet. This was the pattern that seemed to be continuing for a long time to come.
    Since that visit in November 1984 the political problems within Ethiopia have not improved. It is common knowledge that the Ethiopian Government have been giving assistance to the civil war in the south of Sudan. That civil war, combined with the burden imposed upon the already tottering economy of Sudan, led to the downfall of President Numeiri and the installation of the interim provisional Government in Khartoum. Unfortunately, a political solution has still not been found for the civil war in the south of Sudan in spite of the mediatory efforts made by the new authorities in Khartoum. This is sad and tragic because as a consequence of the continued conflict there are more refugees and there is a continuing relief problem in the south of the country.
    In neighbouring Chad the problem is not much better. The climate has taken its toll and the famine has been severe. The news reports from Paris suggest that the Libyan-backed parties in the north are massing their forces again and the Government in N'Djamena are worried lest civil war should break out once more. At the beginning of the refugee movement from Chad into the western part of Sudan a good proportion of the refugees were driven out because of the civil war in Chad.
    At the other side of Ethiopia, in the eastern part of the Horn of Africa, there is a continuing difficulty in that self-determination for the Somali people within Ethiopia has not been possible. Some 700,000 Somali refugees were driven out of the Ogaden region. To this day the Ethiopian air force conducts raids across the border and attacks villages in Somalia. That makes it harder to repatriate Ethiopian refugees.
    There are serious political problems throughout the whole of the Horn of Africa, which is one of the most impoverished parts of the continent, and I bring those problems to the attention of the House. It is against that troubled and disturbed background that I ask the House to look at Her Majesty's Government's relief efforts and aid programme. It is sad that our gross bilateral aid to Somalia has declined over the past five years. In 1980 total financial aid and technical co-operation was £2·8 million. The figure has moved steadily downwards since that time and is now £2·1 million. There is a similar tale in British
    188
    gross bilateral aid to Sudan. In 1981 the figure was £32·7 million, rising to a peak of £39·4 million in 1982. The figure for 1984, which is the most recent figure available, is down to £27·4 million. Those two countries, as I explained, have been adversely affected not only by the drought, which has affected the whole of that belt of Africa, but by a huge influx of refugees from Ethiopia.
    However, when I look at Her Majesty's Government's aid to Ethiopia it is interesting to note that in 1980 gross bilateral aid to Ethiopia was £1·9 million and rose steadily to £7 million in 1984. I understand that in the exceptional circumstances of the drought Her Majesty's Government have had to take exceptional relief measures, and that is to their credit. Since October 1984 the British Government have disbursed no less than £36·84 million to Sudan. In 1984 they gave £25·84 million and in 1985 £36·34 million for the relief of famine in Ethiopia. That is welcome and good, but we must be realistic.
    I am deeply shocked when I read reports in the papers that the Government in Addis Ababa have just banned from Ethiopia the admirable team of French doctors—Médecins Sans Frontières—who have been doing wonderful work not least in the provinces most wracked by civil war, of Eritrea, Tigre and Wollo. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, who knows and has visited Ethiopia, to discuss with his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary whether pressure could be put on the Ethiopian authorities to conduct themselves in a normal, civilised and humane way.
    Furthermore, it must be stated loud and clear and unambiguously that the forced transfer of populations, usually by Soviet air force aircraft or, if not, Aeroflot aircraft, from Eritrea and Tigre to the southern provinces of Ethiopia does no good for the relief of famine. Those people are herded on to the aircraft. I have heard it alleged that Royal Air Force crews at one side of an airport will be preparing their relief sorties and relief missions while at the other side of the same airport Soviet personnel arid their Ethiopian brethren are herding hapless farmers and rural populations on to aircraft to be transferred to a strange and alien part of Ethiopia. That is intolerable. The Ethiopian Government have been using famine as a weapon of war against what they regard as the dissident populations of Eritrea and Tigre, who are seeking no more than the process of self-determination for themselves arid a chance for autonomy in their provinces.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: There is a danger that my hon. Friend may unwittingly give an alibi to those who would wish Britain to cut our overseas aid altogether on the basis that if the countries of Africa cannot sort themselves out, why should we assist them? I wish to draw to my hon. Friend's attention a letter sent by the assistant secretary-general, based in Addis Ababa, to the editor of The Times in August this year. He said:
    "There is a complete consensus here among representatives of donor countries and voluntary organisations that the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission is doing its utmost to distribute whatever grain has been consigned to it."
    The letter said that the United Nations thought that the Ethiopian Government were doing their bit to combat famine and not using it as an instrument of war, although the civil war must be brought to an end. However, it has not been used consciously as an instrument of war.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I did not realise that my hon. Friend would read a handout in his intervention. If I had, I would not have let him intervene.

    189
    I led the House's delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations in October. During that visit we were briefed by Mr. Bradford Morse, who heads the United Nations development programme and who has also been responsible for the United Nations emergency programme for Africa. That programme's document of 1 September 1985 reports an increase in child malnutrition in southern Tigre and says that there is particular concern for the health of orphans, destitutes and old people remaining in the camps. It lays particular stress on the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Ethiopia for the returnees coming back from Sudan and Somalia, and the United Nations reminds us that next year, too, there will still be a major requirement for emergency food aid.
    In no part of my speech did I deprecate in any way our efforts to alleviate suffering and help people suffering from famine in Ethiopia and the neighbouring states. I stated that war and the unscrupulous activities of the Ethiopian Government have made the relief operations much harder than they need have been. It is a scandal and a tragedy, but it had to be exposed. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to do SO.
    5·26 pm
    Mr. Stuart Holland: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) and members of his Committee on their outstanding report. I agree with his submission today that the famine disaster in Africa could have been avoided. The key question now is whether, jointly, we can contribute to avoiding its recurrence. To understand that and learn the lessons from the famine, we do not need a crystal ball.
    Unfortunately, the future is already visible in the trend of food production in Africa. For example, from 1970 to the early 1980s in the industrial countries as a whole, as we would expect, food production per head was positive at 1·6 per cent. a year and for developing countries as a whole it was positive at 0·9 per cent. a year, but for Africa it was negative. In the west African countries as a whole it was -0·8 per cent. and in east Africa it was -2·2 per cent. If we look at the long-term trends, we see that from 1961 to 1970, less than six out of 24 African countries vulnerable to a food crisis registered a negative growth or a fall-back in per capita food production, but from 1971 to 1984 only six out of those 24 countries achieved a positive growth of food production per head.
    I might come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), from a different perspective, about the extent to which certain Governments seem more content to wage war within their own frontiers than to wage war on drought. None the less, even before the recent famine, and since the last major famine in 1974–75, agricultural output per head in Africa has been declining irrespective of drought or wars. That is the underlying issue to which I should like to address myself.
    The hon. Member for Stroud, with good reason, drew attention to the fact that while drought self-evidently relates to climatic factors and causes famine, famine affects the poorest sections of the population. Therefore, if we urge the Government to take those measures in their
    190
    aid programme which will help to avoid rather than simply remedy the effects of dought, the underlying structural problem of poverty should be addressed.
    Much work has been done on that by Professor Amartya Sen who is now at the University of Oxford. I am glad to say that much attention also is now being paid to that, not by the economists in the economic research division of the World Bank, who seem to have seen the market work in south-east Asia and have been converted to market forces, but in the international division of the bank, especially by the head of that division, Shahid Javed Burki. Such stress on underlying structural poverty in the African countries can make a major contribution not only to our debate but to the kinds of policies which we should adopt and which we should urge the Government to adopt.
    For example, Shahid Javed Burki has drawn attention to the fact that if the very poor are defined as those who ordinarily do not have enough income to obtain sufficient calories for adequate growth or health, against a worldwide increase of that category of up to an estimated 400 million people in 1985, the share of sub-Saharan Africa in that total has risen from 20 per cent., or 60 million people, in 1970, to nearly 40 per cent., or 150 million people, in 1985. In other words, in 1985 nearly half the population of sub-Saharan Africa belongs to the category of very poor—the people who are exceptionally vulnerable to famine when it occurs.
    If the House is to address itself to the recommendations to be made to the Government on their aid programme and spending, we must understand that the consequences of famine will be irreversible unless there are sustained policies for intervention in agricultural production and in regional and rural development.
    The first effect of famine was identified by the Royal Commission established on the famines in India earlier this century. It might well be called the shoe horn effect. In other words, it has been found that small farmers leave the land during famine and in that phase they almost certainly liquidate the small assets that they have, certainly their herds.
    The second phase is that in which such former farmers seek farm employment hundreds of miles from their former grazing or plot areas. Therefore, they become casual labourers often driven into degradation, and too often the women are driven into prostitution.
    The third phase is more critical, when depopulation sets in. Entire villages—whole rural communities—abandon the land in search of food. There is a simple logic about that. It swells the urban population while reducing rural farming. The result is less food for more people off the land and a combined rural and urban crisis.
    What is needed to cope with the underlying structural problems of rural migration and urban poverty? First, higher food prices alone—I stress "alone"—are not the answer. For one thing, with depopulation and the reduction of the working population in agriculture—and of the land under cultivation—higher prices alone would simply aggravate inflation and shift the price of food further out of reach of the new urban poor. Even lower prices, such as are now registered in many of the African countries following recent rains—a point stressed in a recent article in the New Scientist—give no long-term incentive to migrants during the recent famine to return to the land. The price mechanism alone is not enough to

    191
    achieve, and certainly not enough to guarantee, a return to the rural areas of those who have come off the land during famine.
    Secondly, as is illustrated in the Harare declaration to which some hon. Members referred, we need policies which make possible a better balance between cash crops for export and food for domestic production. The hazards of cash crops for export have been well known for some time and have been often criticised. We know why local Governments pursue that policy. They need the foreign exchange to finance imports, often not only imports of fuel but also agricultural imports such as seeds, fertilisers and agricultural equipment, including spares.
    A third major corollary directly links the need for agricultural development to offset famine and the problem of debt. This has been stressed before in the House but we have not had adequate answers from the Minister. We appreciate that the Minister and the Overseas Development Administration have written off some of the loans to less developed countries and converted them to grants, and we are glad about that. But that still leaves us with the crippling problem with which Sudan was faced last year.
    Although the Minister was able to give tens of millions of pounds in grants and assistance to Sudan, its total debt last year was $8,000 million. That resulted in the absurd situation that, when Secretary of State Shultz came to the Sudan to see the crisis and what the US agencies were doing, it is reported with some authority that several Ministers were able to drive to the airport to meet him but their staff had to return by public transport because they could not afford to drive back into town. Many of the British public have seen on television the Geldof convoys from the remarkable Live Aid and Band Aid initiatives overtaking convoys that have been stranded in the Sudan through lack of fuel. That is a crucial factor in the aid programme. Aid alone for agricultural equipment is not enough. Even if we were to see an increase in the aid budget, that would not be enough if the debt problem were not tackled.
    In that context we urge the Government—especially with the kind of change in the United States Government's attitude which we see from Mr. Baker and which we welcome in terms of increased proposals for World Bank lending—to get together with the Governments of the United States, Germany and other EC countries to fund the long-term debt, reschedule it, and, where necessary, write off the long-term debt of the least developed countries and certainly the sub-Saharan African countries. The official estimate of their debt at $80 billion is, if anything, likely to be an under-estimate. It has recently been reckoned that it is under-estimated by 50 per cent. Any increase in the aid contribution, even if achieved, has to be seen in that debt context.
    Zambia is in a straitjacket of debt. It is 95 per cent. dependent for its export earnings on one commodity—copper. With falling copper prices and the rise in fuel prices it is being crucified by long-term debt. Even with the floating of the kwacha, even seeking market solutions in the foreign exchange market, one cannot find adequate sacks to store the new food and the food surplus which in certain products has become available in recent months in Zambia.
    Fourthly, the repopulation of rural areas and a longterm stable price structure means the need for intervention in agriculture and in regional development programmes
    192
    rather than simply market forces. Those in the World Bank, the IMF and the Government who advocate a fuller flourish of market forces neglect the fact that no developed country has ever subjected its agriculture to the rigours of market forces in this century in the way that the World Bank and certain others are advocating for the African countries. The United States, Britain, with its previous deficiency payment system, and the EEC, with its common agricultural policy, would not dream of letting market forces rip with the consequent decimation of agricultural production in the manner in which certain people are advocating simply a market forces solution for African agriculture.
    Of course, the market has an appropriate role to play. Of course, there are key issues of appropriate prices to producers. Certainly no Labour Member would argue that the African countries need a common agricultural policy of the kind that we now find in the EEC with its vast surpluses. But the African countries do need donors to work jointly with them to secure policies for incentives, assistance, grants and technical support for agriculture that go beyond the vagaries of market supply and demand and can assure a long-term future for agriculture.
    Mr. Ian Grist: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, from those who may know Africa a little better, that if European farmers can produce surpluses from overpriced food, the introduction of prices that the market could fetch would find African fanners producing food just as well?
    Mr. Holland: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by those who know Africa a little better. He is not addressing himself to my main point. In the depopulated rural areas in sub-Saharan countries there is an outward migration of population to other countries—for example, Eritrea, Tigré, and Sudan. There is massive urbanisation. The market mechanism alone cannot provide sufficient incentives, from just one of two good annual harvests, to attract population back to the rural areas and to deserted and desolated villages.
    I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's point about price support. Of course, price support is an appropriate policy. However, a price mechanism alone will not ensure that those who have come off the land, joined the rural poor and are contributing to the urban population explosion will have the courage to return to the land when they lack capital, basic machinery and credit for further agricultural investment.
    Fifthly, in any programme priority must be given to the needs of those who produce the most, but are paid the least. In Africa, that certainly applies to women. In east Africa, women work an average of 40 per cent. more than men, but are paid 60 per cent. less.
    The Lomé agreement recommends that we should give credit where credit is due—that is to women and to women's co-operatives—rather than simply increase revenue through higher prices paid to male heads of households. It is clear that certain African Governments are willing to support and encourage that, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments. Otherwise, increased revenue from higher prices, or even a price support policy, will not go to those who have a vested interest in reinvesting in agriculture.
    Sixthly, the role of technical assistance has two dimensions, and that issue has been raised many times in

    193
    the House. One dimension is water-based technical assistance, copper dams, pumps, wells and so on. The second dimension is seed-based assistance including both dry soils and tropical seed research. This House should admit that the Government's record is deplorable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has said several times, the Government have cut assistance to the Tropical Development Research Institute in London.
    There is no aspect of that six-point agenda for action in sub-Saharan Africa where the Government are taking a lead rather than following the laissez-faire remedies favoured by the United States Administration.
    During Question Time last month, the Prime Minister claimed that the United Kingdom aid contribution was in line with the OECD average. I pointed out that in terms of aid per head per OECD donor country, Britain is twelfth on the list. Indeed, our aid as itemised in the Chancellor's autumn statement will not mean an increasein—or even a defence of in real terms—the current spending levels up to 1987. The probable inflation rate is likely to mean a net decrease in aid as a share of United Kingdom GDP by a further 1 per cent. or even 2 per cent. down to 32 per cent. or 31 per cent. of GDP by 1987.
    What is happening with rural development assistance? United Kingdom Government aid allocations for rural development have declined from £10 million in 1980 to less than £0·2 million in 1984. That is a derisory 2,000th part of 1 per cent. of the total United Kingdom aid budget. Will the Minister make a dramatic statement today, perhaps saying that he will double, treble, quadruple, or multiply by 10 times the amount spent on the rural development programme? Even were he to multiply it by 10 times, it would still be only 2 per cent. of the total United Kingdom aid budget. If the Minister cannot show that sort of commitment to longer-term rural development, we cannot take seriously the Government's commitment to these issues.
    Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), spoke of the reshuffling of the aid budget so that the emergency food aid programme of £90 million to £95 million spent on famine relief came from other items of the budget. The net contribution of up to £9 million for the Hercules had to come from a magnificent effort by the Ministry of Defence rather than from the ODA.
    I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood that many hon. Members heard on the ITN news today about the ending of the RAF's remarkable air lift, which recently has been accompanied by a new aerial assault in Eritrea by the Dergue, who have bombed women and children, hospitals and resettlement camps, and who have waged war on civilian populations—taking lives when the remainder of the world are attempting to save those lives.
    The tragedy in Ethiopia is substantially of the Dergue's own making. But for the longer-term tragedy in sub-Saharan Africa, unless the Minister tells us today that despite the opaque nature of the Estimates there will be an increase in the aid budget, a triple indictment must be made—first, that the Government were warned of the coming famine but did not respond soon enough; secondly, that during the famine the Government robbed Peter to aid Paul, rescheduling aid rather than mobilizing
    194
    new aid resources; and, thirdly, that the Government appear to have learnt next to nothing about the underlying, long-term causes of the famine and have taken no clear steps to help avoid its recurrence.
    The Government should have shifted new resources to respond to the famine, rather than reshuffle the aid budget. To recover from the famine, the Government—jointly with other countries—need to reschedule the debt of the sub-Saharan countries, to help restructure rural farming and aid a redistribution of resources towards rural areas. Before the famine, the Government proved themselves deaf to the warnings issued in the House. During the famine they often appeared to be blind to the real issues. Nothing in the current Estimates promises anything better for the future.
    5·47 pm
    Mr. Jim Lester: Before his peroration, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) had made a useful contribution to the debate. Those of us who follow this subject with considerable interest wholly reject his peroration on the Government's actions.
    It is a pleasure to speak yet again on this matter in this Session. I spoke in the debate on the Queen's Speech, when hon. Members pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the projected figures on aid and said how seriously many Conservative Members were awaiting his autumn statement.
    We very much welcome the fact that in the autumn statement the aid programme for 1986–87 and 1987–88 has been increased by £47 million. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister played his part in ensuring that increase. It would be churlish of anyone to refuse to recognise the part that he played.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke about the position on the border between Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan. He also referred to the politics of the issue. With the opportunity to travel the world, we can see the politics of the issue. I, like my hon. Friend, have travelled the famine areas and have taken photographic slides. When one is able to show those slides to schoolchildren and constituents and can share one's experience of what it is like to be in a camp in Darfur, the reaction is, "This is not politics; this is a question of the survival of the people".
    I am sure that we all recognise that poverty is the real problem in Africa, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) said. I pay tribute to him as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He has led us positively. I am sure that the Committee's work has commended itself to the House.
    Things have moved on since the report, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to the article in the New Scientist entitled "Who will buy the surplus?" Some of us moved quickly to get in touch with my right hon. Friend to discuss that policy. It would clearly be disastrous in a climate-led recovery if surpluses depressed farm prices and we were not able to encourage a fragile economy. My right hon. Friend said:
    "The United Kingdom has long argued that food aid should, wherever it is practical and cost effective, be purchased in one developing country which has a food surplus and transported to another which has a food deficit. This both encourages local farmers and provides valuable foreign exchange to the vendor country. We are currently arranging just such a 'triangular' transaction under our bilateral food aid programme, with 14,500

    195
    tonnes of grain being purchased in Zimbabwe for use as food aid to Mozambique. The European Community also makes use of triangular transactions as part of its very large food aid programme, and the United Kingdom has urged it to do so more frequently."
    This shows that, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, my right hon. Friend the Minister is alert and aware of the changing problems and that he is trying to solve them.
    Many of the Select Committee's members were concerned that the warning signals had been evident in the poorer African areas but, when the famine struck, many people were surprised. The United Nations had already warned the developing nations more than 23 times that a famine was developing. The Committee recommended that staff in overseas posts in countries where there was a risk of famine should conduct their own assessments independently of other organisations. My right hon. Friend the Minister wrote to the Committee saying that the arrangements had been made. Officers posted to countries where there is a risk of famine will be briefed on how to interpret the information and guidance notes have been distributed on the assessment of the food situation for the benefit of officers already in those countries. Those are two positive ways in which my right hon. Friend has reacted to the Committee's recommendations.
    That makes me all the more sad that my right hon. Friend the Minister has not been able to respond to another point to which attention has been drawn in the Supplementary Estimates the additional funds for famine relief that should have been provided. I am totally unconvinced by the argument that this is slippage and that no long-term development programme has been affected. One need only look at the average of the contingencies fund over the years to defeat that argument. The average has been about £13 million. In 1983 it was £30 million. We spent £80 million in 1984 and £87 million in 1985 on famine relief. If the average contingency reserve is £13 million and we spend the total budget, one cannot sustain the argument that the additional sums have not damaged the long-term development programme.
    I am prepared to accept that a specific programme has not been stopped through slippage and that aid for an established programme has not been discontinued. It is obvious that programmes have been delayed and postponed. Had it not been for the famine problems, those programmes would have begun this year or last year. The Government are wrong to sustain that argument. It would be more sensible if they honestly admitted the truth. The Committee said that it was not acceptable that the entire cost of the United Kingdom's response to the crisis should fall on the previously agreed aid budget. We said that the emergency was of such a degree that it had to be regarded as a new situation and that substantial new money had to be provided to help with it. All Committee members stand by that position. It would be better if the Government admitted that that was the case rather than pretended that some strange formulation in the aid budget has produced additional contingency funds without diverting money from projects that would have gone ahead anyway.
    The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the working party on United Kingdom aid to African agriculture of which I was the chairman. The report was a frank analysis of what we have been doing for African agriculture. The working party decided to be as constructive as possible to analyse those areas in
    196
    which long-term development had, or had not, been operating efficiently and the required changes. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise that the fragile climate-led recovery in many parts of Africa is just a hiccup. The rainfall this year has been much lower than the average in previous decades. It would be a mistake to imagine that this year's rain and production levels mean a new pattern. We have been given a window of opportunity to rethink, restate and refinance our aid programme for assistance to African agriculture.
    I would very much welcome my right hon. Friend taking up the Committee's suggestion and, early in the new year, making a new policy statement on the Government's stand on their aid programme and the share that will go to the poorest countries.
    The working party stated:
    "We believe that the ODA should maintain a specific long-term development aid programme which is inviolate. It should be equipped with a small provision for emergencies, and when a larger response is needed, this should be funded on the basis of additionality from one Government's contingency reserve and not from departmental funds."
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion and make it part of any future policy statement.
    None of us—certainly no one who has been out in a field frequently—pretends that this problem can be easily solved, because we are concerned with the poorest people in poor countries, who are many miles from the population centres, road and rail systems and the means of support that would normally be necessary to sustain life.
    It is difficult to maintain schemes in those areas. It is asking a lot of our aid people to spend long periods—frequently longer than six months—in such an environment, especially if they have families, because there is a lack of schools and other facilities. It is difficult also to persuade the nationals of these countries to do so. One might like to think of the bright lights of Khartoum, although I must admit I have yet to find them in my visits. I am sure that the bright lights of Kassala, El Fasser or Nyala are much dimmer. One should not pretend that it is not difficult to establish schemes for the rehabilitation of the peasant farmer and the nomad. Anyone who criticises the aid programme should recognise that. We must work together more positively with proper financing and skilled manpower, whatever its source, to begin schemes. We must recognise that politically the schemes are not popular because they do not produce immediate results.
    Having examined carefully the schemes that exist, we found that, instead of looking at three-year or four-year programmes within the lifetime of a Parliament or even a Government, to be successful in areas such as this, one needs to look ahead 15, 20 or even 25 years and to a sustained programme of manpower and support.
    All sorts of high-flown ideas are proposed of what is needed to help peasant farmers. We now have examples of what it takes to encourage farmers to produce. For example, in Zimbabwe there has been a remarkable recovery by peasant farmers, and that has come about not by over-elaborate schemes. The farmers there have grown enough to feed the whole population by receiving high-yielding seed, fertilisers at the right time, credit when they needed it and, at the end of the day, a price for their crops that gave them an incentive to grow a surplus and plant for a second year.
    I urge the Minister to listen carefully to what is being said in the debate and to note the work that is being achieved by the Foreign Affairs Committee. He can rest

    197
    assured that we shall return to this subject time and again, and certainly until we are satisfied that Parliament and the Government reflect the opinions of the members of that Committee and Back Benchers who are interested in these issues.
    6·2 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) made a thoughtful and powerful speech, especially when dealing with the Government's contingency arrangements—or the lack of them—and I am sure that he spoke for hon. Members in all parts of the House when dealing with that issue.
    My main purpose in intervening is to refer to the Grindlays address that was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) on 25 September of this year in Jersey, when he made what I consider to have been a major contribution on subjects which are highly relevant to this debate. In that address my right hon. Friend pointed out that the situation in Africa was an enormous tragedy but not an inevitable one. It was not the result of an inability to feed the world's growing population or to fight disease and poverty. It was, rather, a question of meeting Africa's desperate need for assistance.
    The size of the problem that we are debating dwarfs the present level of aid, and without a substantial increase in aid the economic challenges that confront the Third world will be insurmountable. We witness the ludicrous situation of net capital and interest payments flowing from the Third world to the west instead of the other way around. Certain African countries have been forced to adopt export policies which place too much emphasis on industrialisation and producing cash crops for export instead of improving farm practices and growing food for local use.
    Before we condemn such policies we should attempt to evaluate why they are occurring. Without the revenue and foreign currency that accrues from such exports, countries cannot afford to purchase fertilisers or fuel for the next crop. Nor can they pay the interest on their indebtedness to other countries.
    My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, during a visit to Tanzania, quoted Julius Nyerere as having said that he had to choose in his country between paying his debts and feeding his people. That, alas, is the choice we place before the leaders of many African countries, leaving little hope for them to be able to improve the lot of their people. My right hon. Friend noted when in Tanzania that that country's debt service obligations amounted to more than its foreign exchange earnings for the whole year.
    There are, in all of that, implications for the western world, including Britain, in connection with unemployment and the job potential that we seem to be ignoring. Unemployment in the industrialised west represents stagnant development in the Third world and something for them and us which is far from a separate problem. Significant problems affect us all because of the way in which we approach these matters. Indeed, when I think of the problems of the Third world and of the possibilities of job creation which we ignore, I am reminded of the speech, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall
    198
    (Mr. Holland) will recall, of Mr. Ben Bella at a meeting initiated by the late Frank McElhone in which Ben Bella said:
    "Your unemployed are our dead."
    That is true, and we should be contributing more to the Third world to avoid such a calamity. It is a scandal, as we view the poverty in those countries, that in Britain men, mills and machinery are standing idle.
    These problems are intrinsically linked by an economic relationship from which no nation can completely isolate itself. The industrial nations will not gain if there is an increasing wealth gap between them and the developing countries. Their poverty directly affects our welfare, just as our recession limits their development.
    One in 20 industrial jobs in Europe and one in six in the United States depends on exports to the Third world. If the people of the Third world cannot afford to buy what we make, unemployment in the industrial west will grow.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth pointed out in his Grindlays address that by the year 2000 world population was expected to be 6·1 billion, three times higher than it was at the turn of this century. In the western industrialised nations, population growth would be relatively low when compared with Africa, though even in the United States there would probably be 20 per cent. more people than there are now, making it a problem, though not such a great one as that faced by African countries, because Africa's population would almost double, from 476 million in 1980 to 877 million by the year 2000.
    My right hon. Friend pointed out that those developments were occurring at a time when access to fertile land was decreasing and poverty was on the increase and more Africans were estimated to be under-nourished than was the case a decade ago, with 20 per cent. less food being produced for every African today than was produced in 1960. If present trends continued, by the year 2000 the continent of Africa would need to import 44 per cent. of all its food requirements, but many of the countries so affected would not be able to afford to do so. That is the nature of the problem that the world must prepare for and attempt to defeat. Without improving on present standards, we shall have to produce 30 per cent. more food by the year 2000 just to meet the demands of growing numbers of people. That can be done only if aid is increased and directed to where it is manifestly required.
    Every year, massive amounts of arable land revert to infertile desert, over-grazing and poor irrigation techniques, and the large-scale cutting down of forests contribute to the problems that Africa and other countries face. Short-term relief is not enough. The Government have presided over an 18 per cent. cut in their aid and development budgets since 1979. That includes a cut of £40 million this year and represents 3 per cent. in real terms. I am sure that the public, which has been so generous with its contributions, regards those reductions as being utterly repugnant and unacceptable. It is deplorable that the Government should leave the needs of the African people to the mercies of the market.
    This year the United Kingdom has donated a record low amount—0·33 per cent. of gross national product—to overseas aid. The Government have not made the slightest attempt to achieve the 0·7 per cent. United Nations target which many other countries, less fortunate than us, have already reached or exceeded. That tells us everything about the Government's aid objectives. [Interruption.] I

    199
    agree that the Goverment's policy is nonsense. The 20,000 people who lobbied the House not so long ago showed that they agreed with me. A massive increase in overseas aid positively directed towards meeting human needs and encouraging long-term self-reliance is required. Aid for farmers to reclaim land from the desert and to facilitate the planting of new forests are two possible ways of encouraging the self-reliance that we would welcome for African economies.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth reminded us of how Ernest Bevin seized upon the Marshall plan after the war because he recognised that economic development and human freedom went hand in hand. The process was of benefit not just to the European countries but to the vastly productive economy of the United States. Today, we lack the political will to solve the problem. The price of such folly and the failure to tackle world economic problems in a way that will lead to recovery contribute to falling living standards throughout the world, especially in the poor south.
    We should be investigating better ways of bringing recovery and not recession to Africa in particular and the Third world in general. That requires development aid rather than austerity programmes. It is a challenge to us all which has not been answered. We thrive together or decay separately. Bevin and Marshall had the vision to recognise that fact in the 1940s. It is staring us in the face in the 1980s and we ignore it, not so much at our peril but at the peril of millions of starving people whose plight it is possible to avoid.
    6·12 pm
    Mr. Bowen Wells: I agree with much of the analysis made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) of the position in Africa. There is good and bad news. I wish to speak in a balanced way about the aid budget. We must, therefore, consider the positive as well as the negative side.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has done an extremely good job, which is recognised by most nations, in conducting the aid programme in relation to the famine in Africa. Much of that aid programme has gone through the EEC. I have found, as the House will be aware, much difficulty in obtaining information from my right hon. Friend on what was being done by the EEC with over half the money spent on Africa. I was fortunate enough to go to Brussels and find out much of the information for myself.
    One of the gratifying things that I discovered is that my right hon. Friend, almost unknown to the country and the House, contributed not just a Hercules in Ethiopia where the RAF has done such sterling work, but chartered a Hercules in a joint programme organised by the EEC delegate in the Sudan. It was used to carry food from the east of Sudan to the west of Darfur. That was referred to eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The rains had come and lorries could no longer pass across the desert where there are no roads. The refugees from Chad and the Sudanese on the western border of Darfur were starving because the European and American aid could not be transported there despite my right hon. Friend's efforts to have the railway rehabilitated. That was the only alternative way of carrying the grain from east to west.
    200
    My right hon. Friend contributed a charter Hercules. The Italians, the French, the Dutch and the Germans also contributed an aeroplane. In that way, the EEC transported the grain and food, including American food aid, to the west. That is a programme and achievement of which we should be proud, and we should congratulate my right hon. Friend on it.
    I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his defence of the aid budget. He managed to see that it was not reduced, as the Government had planned. He has always tried to conduct the aid programme to provide effective and efficient economic assistance to the poorest countries.
    I must come to the other side of the story to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has referred. I wish to reiterate the points in some detail. They relate to how our efforts in Africa have been funded within the aid budget. The members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee have been playing a game of blind man's buff with the Overseas Development Administration. We are sometimes faced with a budget which is 30 per cent. unallocated when presented to Parliament. That raises the important point of whether Parliament has any control over the budget. Most of that sum is included in the bilateral programme. The matter becomes important when the Government try to hide behind verbiage such as:
    "The emergency aid so far provided has not involved cutting"—
    we must consider carefully the words used
    "any planned development activities in the remainder of the aid programme."
    That beggars belief, because on the most recent aid statistics published by the Department emergency aid represents £95 million. It is part of the bilateral country programme of £434 million from which much of the aid comes. That means that about 20 per cent. of the budget has been extraordinarily spent without affecting—let me use the words carefully—"any planned development activities."
    Before my right hon. Friend says that at least half that sum was spent by the EEC and, therefore, did not come out of the bilateral programme, we will accept that the figure was 10 per cent. Those are huge figures and it is a huge proportion. If that is the case, the House should ask how the aid budget is being planned. What are the long-term development plans which have not been affected? Is it because we are budgeting from month to month that we are not committing the money to the long-term agricultural developments about which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe spoke? Is it that the slippage is so great that we cannot spend it properly on planned long-term developments? We have always spent the complete aid budget, even when there was no emergency or contingency. The aid budget is spent on long-term development objectives when slippage occurs. It is not planned formally because one cannot foresee the events that will take place in a year. The fact that the money is not invested in long-term development is important, and I shall give the House two examples of where it has not been invested.
    The money has not been invested in the United Nations development programme. We have cut severely our contribution, which is voluntary and not ratcheted to GDP. The programme undertakes the initial investigation into long-term agricultural projects which may eventually produce an agricultural answer to the famine-struck regions of Africa. Therefore, to argue that we are not

    201
    affecting long-term development projects by taking money from other projects is a sleight of hand. It is unworthy of my right hon. Friend the Minister to use that argument, and I hope that we shall persuade him to desist from deploying it. It undermines the credibility of his argument.
    I conferred with my friends in the Caribbean about cuts in the aid budget. The Minister went to hear their arguments on 1 August at the request of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. They find that the aid budget is rigid, and that they cannot spend it properly on long-term developments because of the way in which it is presented, and they want a discussion on how that can be improved. The unallocated section is defended, with some justification, by my right hon. Friend the Minister and the ODA because they need flexibility within the budget to take account of the difficulties of disbursing that aid. However, they cannot have a flexible approach from Parliament, and administer aid inflexibly into the host countries in such a way that we do not get economic development but receive a minus quantity of good will from them. There must be something wrong with the administration of our aid if that is the net result. That is also an illustration of the way in which the aid budget is being cut by the diversion of money to famine in Africa. Caribbean countries have certainly suffered because they have not had the additional money which would otherwise be available through the bilateral programme.
    It is essential for the credibility of the aid programme that at least £100 million—that is not a large sum, considering the whole sum—is put back into the aid budget as additional money to handle this serious crisis. We should also use it to begin to invest in the research, development, management and technical co-operation necessary to find the way to enable the people of the Sudan, Ethiopia and Chad to sustain their population and cattle in those arid areas. They can succeed in that.
    The ODA and the EEC have two excellent research projects in the western Sudanese areas devoted to that. Would it not be a magnificent gesture by the Government to give additional money and resources to enable those programmes to ascertain how we can help other people to help themselves and in that way to help us?
    6·23 pm
    Mr. Eric Deakins: This must be the best informed debate that has ever taken place on foreign affairs in the Chamber, for two reasons. First, never before can such a high proportion of those taking part have visited the countries concerned and, what is more, in the recent past. Therefore, hon. Members are aware of the problems from first hand. Secondly, we have before us two reports and other information.
    We have the Select Committee report. Whenever I read a report by the Select Committee I regret that I am no longer a member of it. Perhaps happier days will come, if not before the general election, then after it. We also have the excellent report of the all-party group on the development of African agriculture, which is extremely detailed and well informed. As usual, we have the well-informed mailing from the world development movement, and we have the benefit of a paper prepared by two people—one from Oxfam and the other from Christian Aid—
    202
    on food aid and cereal surpluses. The paper also deals with the underlying agricultural problems in sub-Saharan Africa.
    In addition, we have the benefit of two further documents. The first is published by the Catholic Institute for International Relations and is entitled "Africa's Development Disaster". The other is a recent lecture given by Robert McNamara, who for a long time was a superb president of the World Bank, entitled
    "The challenges for Sub-Saharan Africa",
    in which he deals with the problems that we are debating today—the famine in Africa, and what should be done about it.
    Everyone, including experts and those who have not travelled in that part for some time, agrees that there are several factors in relation to the famine, and hunger and poverty have already been mentioned. They also include the domestic agricultural policies of the African countries concerned, which range from being merely unfortunate to disastrous in terms of raising agricultural production for local people—I am not referring to cash crops for export. Other factors include the decline in recent years in overseas aid for agricultural projects. We should not criticise only the British Government—we have a right to criticise them because the debate is partly about that—but all the other major aid donors to sub-Saharan Africa. They have been reducing their spending on agriculture as a proportion of their total aid to that area. I do not know why, as the signs have been there for a considerable time.
    A further factor contributing to the famine is that there has been no effective development strategy for sub-Saharan Africa. One can to a certain extent justifiably blame the World Bank, and to a lesser extent the International Monetary Fund for that. The World Bank is the major multilateral institution for co-ordinating development plans, and for injecting vast sums through the International Development Association. The World Bank must take some criticism, and I hope that those who have access to it in Washington DC and elsewhere and its various executive vice-presidents will heed our remarks.
    There is a problem in increasing food production for the immediate consumption of the population of those parts which is extremely technical. I do not wish to bore the House, as the information is available and need not be put on the record. Various matters have gone wrong, including the pricing structure, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) pointed out, has both disadvantages and advantages. There has been no concentration on rain-fed crops, only on other crops. The role of women in agricultural development has been disregarded. The state marketing organisations are often inefficient and do not encourage farmers to produce. When they do produce, they do not always succeed in marketing their produce correctly, either in their own countries, or in the rest of the world.
    These are all factors which, while we can deplore, we have to leave to the African Government concerned to put right. At the same time, our aid policy could be much better directed towards increasing African agricultural production for domestic consumption and feeding the growing population. Those factors have been going wrong in the past 20 years of agricultural development in Africa. The experience of successful schemes funded by development projects such as ours should be used as an example and encouragement to African countries and

    203
    Governments to get on with the job themselves. I hope that we shall not have to wait too long for African Governments and aid donors to get the agricultural situation right in sub-Saharan Africa.
    There are other factors besides agriculture in famine and hunger. One, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), was financial flows to sub-Saharan Africa. Unquestionably, these have been reduced. My hon. Friend pointed out that net capital flows generally to the developing world from the developed world have been falling. In the case of sub-Saharan Africa, they have almost got to a negative stage in net repayments on the interest charges on the debts, which are not large by world standards but are by comparison with the GNP of the country. They are an enormous burden on small countries struggling to prosper and do the best that they can for their people. The burden of debt repayment is more than outweighed by the reducing amount of aid going to those countries. They are becoming net contributors to us in the rich countries. I am talking not about the rest of the world, where there are other problems, but about sub-Saharan countries. The capital is not flowing there but outwards. Donors have, for reasons that escape me—none of the publications from which I shall quote has the answer—reduced aid to this part of the world, even those countries with a much better aid record than ours. That is obviously a problem.
    Mr. McNamarain his lecture on 1 August suggested that a massive injection of funds was needed. That is in line with the Brandt reports, and the recent report with which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall had much to do called "The Global Challenge". It concerned ways of revitalising the global economy in ways that will help the poor countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. McNamara reckoned that all donors should immediately step up their aid by no less than 30 per cent. That does not sound such a large figure. It would be large if applied to our total aid budget, but we are talking only about aid to sub-Saharan Africa. Lest it be forgotten that Mr. McNamara was president of the World Bank, he also had harsh things to say about that institution. He has suggested that it needs to quadruple its investment and lending under IDA and other windows of World Bank lending to sub-Saharan Africa to cope with the problems.
    In his lecture, Mr. McNamara had a whole section on population. I was glad that the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), the Chairman of the Select Committee, mentioned this, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West. We cannot debate the problems of famine in Africa without some passing reference to the population problem. I shall quote from Mr. McNamara's lecture. He said on page 12:
    "Sub-Saharan Africa, already the poorest region in the world, now has the highest population growth rate in the world, even exceeding that of the rest of Africa. It is 3·2 per cent. a year. Were that to continue, the population would double in 22 years, quadruple in 44 years, and increase eightfold in 66 years." The year 2025 is not far away and certainly is within the lifetime of all the children in Africa aged up to 12, whom we hope will survive. Mr. McNamara says about that year:
    "By the year 2025 … the population of sub-Saharan Africa . . will have risen from 363 million to 1,201 million." That is 1·2 billion people, almost four times the present level.
    I was struck by the report "Africa's Development Disasters.' by the Catholic Institute for International Relations. It is no secret that the Catholic Church has fairly
    204
    strong views about artificial contraception. A number of hon. Members and I recently went to see Cardinal Hume, the senior Catholic prelate, to express our concern about some of the things that the Pope has been saying both in Africa and Latin America recently. Nevertheless, the CIIR, in its excellent report, had some interesting things to say about population. I regard this almost as the turning of the tide. It says:
    "For Africa as a whole, though total income has risen, the greater growth of population meant that by 1983 income per head had declined to 4 per cent. below its 1970 level."
    That is, in 13 years, income per head in sub-Saharan Africa had decreased in one of the poorest parts of the world.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall quoted the following figure in his interesting speech. The report continues:
    "In most countries, food consumption per head is now less than it was in 1970…The 24 African countries classified as most seriously affected by drought and famine in the period 1983–85 registered a reduction in grain production per person of around 2 per cent. a year between 1970 and 1984…With an overall rate of population growth of 3 per cent. per year, Africa will have a population of 1,100 millions by the year 2010. This means that Africa will have to achieve a rate of economic growth of 3 per cent. a year just to stand still. Clearly, if Africa's economic decline continues it is difficult to see how such a population can be sustained."
    I welcome those comments from the CIIR, because they show, for the first time in any Catholic publication that I have seen, a recognition of the damage caused by too fast rises in population when food supply is not organised and is deteriorating fast.
    One of the lessons of this well-informed debate Is that we have to take account, as I hope that the ODA and the Minister will, of the need not merely to consider increases in total aid, and within that increases in the amount of aid going to proper agricultural projects that will ensure that food is available to the poorest people, but of the ecological conditions. Some of the agricultural projects previously encouraged by the development agencies have been an ecological disaster.
    There is much to do in terms not merely of increasing aid to agriculture but of ensuring that when we talk to these Governments we point out to them that one of the ways in which they can help themselves, apart from putting their own house in order both agriculturally and administratively, is to do something positive about tackling their growing population problem.
    What worries me more than anything else is that eventually, as famine inexorably follows famine—if not next year but the year after that and the year after that because of population pressures and ecological degradation in this part of Africa—people in the rich countries will wake up and say, "Just a moment; we are being asked to give more and more aid just so that we can save people from starvation. We are not doing anything to increase the prosperity of these countries by improving their rate of economic growth." I am sure that all hon. Members wish that to be avoided. As one of the major donors, with great experience in this part of Africa, there is a great task ahead of Britain to show what can be achieved by the policies that we adopt. I hope that this debate will help to achieve that aim.
    6·42 pm
    Mr. Ian Grist: The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) referred to qualifications for

    205
    speaking in this debate. I base mine on the fact that after leaving university my first two jobs took me to Africa: to the rain forests, about which great appeals are now being made, to the great grasslands of the Cameroons and to the sub-Sahelian near deserts of Chad and northern Nigeria. Therefore, I have a little experience of these areas. The love of my life has been to follow African affairs, but what a sad story it has been for so long.
    I concur entirely with the hon. Member for Walthamstow's fears about overpopulation. When I first went to Nigeria the population was estimated in the last census that was taken in 1972—because everything from idiotic administration to fears and jealousies has prevented any other since then—to be 40 million. It is thought that the population is now 90 million, give or take 20 million either way. By the turn of the century it will be 150 million and it is estimated that eventually it will steady at 500 million to 600 million. A more dangerous scenario I cannot paint.
    A country of the size and power of Nigeria with that kind of population is likely to be a danger to its neighbours, as on occasion it has already proved to be. I am referring not to colonies but to the mismanaged economies of independent countries. It was in independent, not dependent, Africa that food production fell. There has been corruption on an almost unimaginable and unexampled scale.
    If one wants an explanation of why some aid projects have failed, it is because the host countries did not believe in helping the peasantry and in producing food for themselves. They believed in the crackpot idea of industrialisation and urbanisation. They thought that this was the way to create a modern society. They did not believe that one could have a modern, rural society. Many people fail to understand that the United States is one of the biggest primary producers in the world and that it is also the greatest industrial nation. I believe that it was the London School of Economics that encouraged this chaotic idea. It resulted in subsidised food for the urban masses. The subsidies have failed because of failing economies. Consequently, starvation has broken out in the towns too. There have been wars, civil wars and coups. The record is catastrophic.
    I do not know how many hon. Members read the article by Professor Michael Beenstock that was published in The Times on 31 October 1985. It is headed "Drought compounded by folly." He said:
    "Government policies of keeping agricultural prices at artificially low levels have reduced smallholder incentives to produce basic foods. So there have been food valleys rather than mountains and shortages rather than plenty. Sahelian Governments have operated this inverted policy in the hope that it would keep the relatively well-off population happy with cheap food from the countryside. As a result, the farmers have hardly had the capacity to cope with normal weather conditions, let alone drought."
    At the end of his article Professor Beenstock said:
    "Charity should begin at home: Sahelian Governments should give agriculture a chance. Aid from Western governments will most probably do little more than support the current official impoverishment of agriculture. Instead of marching on Westminster to demand more aid we should be marching on the Sahelian embassies, calling for the removal of anti-agricultural and pro-industrial biases in their policies."
    That is the truth of the matter and that is the aspect of African life that the Overseas Development Administration has to face.
    206
    That has been recognised by many Africans themselves. There was an excellent article in the magazine West Africa that looked at 25 years of Nigerian independence. It was written by Nnamdi Anyadike. He Said:
    "the 'urban-based' development that characterised Nigerian's investment patterns led to a gradual deterioration in the quality of life in rural areas, forcing the most able-bodied to decamp to the towns. Those who were left, usually the elderly, less educated or those otherwise unable to leave the villages, could hardly keep pace with production to feed the expanding population in the towns. This exodus to the cities became a stampede when oil started to overtake agriculture as the mainstay of the country's economy."
    All hon. Members know what has happened because of the value of oil during the last few years. Mr. Anyadike gave an instance of what happened to production between 1970 and 1982. He said:
    "Cocoa has declined by 43 per cent., rubber by 29 per cent., cotton by 65 per cent. and ground nuts by 64 per cent."
    Hon. Members can probably remember the photographs, taken before the first world war, that illustrated our geography books of gentlemen standing in front of mountains of ground nuts in Nigeria. But Nigeria has begun to import ground nuts. As for palm oil, upon which Unilever was based, and also Lord Leverhulme, Mr. Anyadike said:
    "Nigeria moved from being the world's largest exporter to being a net importer, primarily from Malaysia."
    Malaysia is another Third world country that has got its act together better. There is a moral for Africa if it looks at the far east.
    Which countries in west Africa have not been affected in this way? The Ivory Coast contains three times the number of Frenchmen that were there at independence, and it has come to terms with the International Monetary Fund. It does not suffer from starvation. It feeds its people.
    The Cameroons was the host to thousands of refugees from the civil war in Chad. Nobody heard very much about that problem because the Cameroons could feed those refugees. That country grew and still grows its own food. In President Ahidjo the Cameroons had a person who came from the countryside and who wanted to promote the welfare of small farmers. Therefore, the small farmers of the Cameroons always received a reasonable price, and they were encouraged thereby. Marketing arrangements were established for small farmers. Roads were built and the farmers were able to produce food for the people of the Cameroons and also for the displaced people of other countries.
    Aid must, of course, be continued for cash crops. I remember how welcome it was in the grasslands of the Cameroons when the villagers found that they could grow coffee. They also found that the coffee plants brought in cash with which they could pay for water supplies. They found that by having a cash crop they could help themselves. It is not right to decry cash crops, particularly when they become the mainstay of a country like Ghana which, when it was the Gold Coast, was the greatest producer of cocoa in the world. However, its production has slumped and the Ivory Coast next door, aided by smuggled cocoa from the lower paid Ghanaian farmers, is now the greatest producer of cocoa.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Grist: No, not at this stage.

    207
    We ought to provide assistance for power stations. We have provided such assistance to the Sudan. The people in those countries deserve electrical power, if only to provide power for their hospitals. If one goes into hospital in Lagos, the power, because of Nigeria's economy, may be turned off.
    These people live in modern states. They need roads and vehicles with which to transport food. Ought we to provide aid to transport food around a modern country? Ought not the roads to be in place and the vehicles to be there? Should not the appropriate skills be there, too, so that when vehicles break down they can be repaired? Should not there be money from cash crops, be they cotton or cocoa, to buy the tyres with which to keep vehicles on the road? Is not that the better kind of aid? Is it not better to try to promote skills and to ensure that these countries understand what is needed? They must be helped to understand that they must help their farmers to help themselves and their countries. My hon. Friend the member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to the bright lights of Khartoum. One thinks of the old saying:
    "How do you keep them down on the farm Now that they've seen Paree?"
    One has to ensure that the villages provide sufficient attractions to keep people in the countryside. Provided that farmers in rural countries receive a fair price, they will produce food themselves, just as the European Community farmers, or farmers anywhere else in the world, can nose out a profit and go for it.
    The Chinese have discovered that moral. Since the Chinese peasants were given a price incentive to aim for, China's food production has rocketed in the past five years. Precisely the same is beginning to happen in Africa. Drought was a terrible disaster, but it was exacerbated ten times by the policies which the African Governments have put into place. Heaven help the African Governments if they have not learnt that, although the West can do much to help them, they must have sensible policies and not those which have led to the creation of urban masses, Mercedes cars and other forms of corruption. Their policies have not helped the Africans, the people that I came to know in the villages and countryside so well and whose welfare I hold deeply at heart.
    6·51 pm
    Mr. Guy Barnett: Like the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), I have lived and worked in Africa. Unfortunately, in view of his speech, that is about all I share with him.
    It is too easy to assume that all the mistakes that have been made in the African continent are the responsibility of Africans and that the West and the East—the rich world—have no responsibility for Africa.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central was correct when he said that after independence serious mistakes were made. Sometimes these mistakes were made with the full encouragement of the West and some of them were as disastrous as the hon. Gentleman has described. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind—and I am sure that he knows this from his own experience—that we handed over power to one African Government after another but did not hand over the administrative training that was necessary to run the African economies.
    I was a teacher in Africa and I remember the speed with which my pupils rocketed to the top of the civil service
    208
    because they happened to be in just the right generation to do so. My pupils found themselves taking on enormous responsibilities in the civil service, in parastatals and other institutions where they had very little experience of running such enormous organisations or carrying out the required administrative work.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central referred to the attraction of bright lights, but he must know that that attraction was already a serious factor during the colonial period. I recall the mounting problem in the back streets, in the slum areas and the shanty towns on the outside of cities such as Nairobi that arose because of the attraction of urban life.
    On previous occasions, I have said that in many ways the West has all too readily given the impression that the answer to Africa's problems was industrialisation and the urban community. The West may not have stated that explicitly at times, but by our actions we have given the impression that that is the case.
    The West often blames African Governments for failing to take sufficient notice of their remoter areas. I remember visiting the Ghanaian Ministry of Education and one of the officials asked where I had been. When I told him that I had been to Tamale in northern Ghana, he was amazed. He was even more amazed when I told him that I had actually been as far as Bolgatanga. He said that he had never been to Bolgatanga and he never expected to go there.
    It is all very well for the West to be critical of the Africans in that respect. It so happens that I have been neither to Lands End nor John O'Groats. It is, therefore, not surprising to find officials in the civil service in Accra or in any other capital in the world who have not travelled the length and breadth of their countries. It would be relatively easy for me to get to Lands End, John O'Groats or other remoter parts of the United Kingdom, but the areas that we are now discussing are so remote that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to grow cash crops.
    Many of the West's aid policies have been aimed at encouraging Africans to develop cash crops which the Africans felt they needed in order to deal with their worsening economic circumstances. The Africans hoped that such aid would help them to produce more and more coffee, tea, cocoa and other crops. The world prices of those commodities often fell and they had to increase production in order to balance their payments and to import machinery and equipment from the industrialised world. In many respects the West has forced those problems on Africa. Much of our aid programme has been successfully directed towards the production of cash crops.
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) is not being entirely fair when he blames the colonial powers for not having trained the colonial territories before their departure. I recall hardly any protests from either side of the House about our not staying long enough in the colonial territories. Nor was it suggested that it was not right to leave until adequate training had been given. No one protested about that at the time. It was the fashion to get out, and get out we did.
    Mr. Barnett: I do not claim for a moment that we should have remained in the colonial territories longer than we did. The political circumstances were such that we could not. Perhaps we should have foreseen the need for Africanisation of the civil service long before we did. In

    209
    [Mr. Barnett]
    India we at least handed over responsibility to a Government where there was a measure of experience in the states and in the government of India itself, but I could quote case after case in African countries where such skills were not present.
    Recently the British Council has made possible the training of Kenyan district commissioners in this country. The council is providing the training needed to raise standards of district administration in Kenya.
    There is no doubt, however, that we should have foreseen the need for that training and the handing over of responsibility. We should have been more capable of predicting the probable dates of independence. Indeed, the Colonial Office told a colleague of mine shortly after the war ended that the probability was that no African country would become independent until the end of this century. That was the accepted wisdom of the Colonial Office.
    There has been an over-concentration on cash crops, often in the areas that are well endowed with good soil, good rainfall and good climate. One exciting aspect to arise from the tragedies in Africa is the realisation that has been expressed over and over again in the debate of the need to concentrate on the remote, semi-arid areas. That need is becoming increasingly apparent both to the African Governments and to the West.
    The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others referred to the great increase in public interest in overseas development. I should like to mention one interesting figure. When the Brent lobby took place in 1981, everyone was astonished that 10,000 people should lobby the House of Commons on behalf of people other than themselves. The lobby that took place in October consisted of twice that number. That is another example of the enormous growth in interest.
    I believe unquestionably that the reason for the growth in interest is that people have been affected by the appalling pictures of the famine in Sudan and Ethiopia that they witnessed on their television sets. But there was something more than a quantitative increase in people's interest. For many years people were concerned about the effect of famine, and their natural reaction was, "We must feed that child and that family". But there is now a great realisation among the public of the need for long-term development in the semi-arid areas.
    Mention has already been made of the report "UK Aid to African Agriculture". I was a member of that working party, which was chaired by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). I wish to refer to only one part of it, because it is relevant to our debate. We discovered in our researches that the contribution that Britain makes to agriculture in Africa as a proportion of our aid to that continent is far smaller than it should be, and that our contribution to the semi-arid areas is very poor indeed.
    Having quoted figures, the report says:
    "It emerges from these figures that there has been little movement on UK aid to African agriculture despite the growing crisis of food production in the region."
    We are talking of four countries that we visited. It continues:
    "The share of UK bilateral aid directly or indirectly to agriculture varied between 26 per cent. and 35 per cent. of UK aid to Africa allocable by sector, or between 23 per cent. and 29 per cent. of total UK bilateral aid to Africa".
    The report then goes on:
    "The amounts have decreased in real terms."
    210
    That is the first point that must be made. The second is that we have concentrated a large percentage of that aid on the more favoured areas and on cash crops, and we have made very little contribution to the kind of rural development projects in the semi-arid areas that could do most to help the people who are most vulnerable to the possibilities of famine in the future.
    It has been said that this area of development is perhaps the most difficult. It is an area in which we shall have to make a contribution over many years before we begin to see the result. But if we are really responding to the mood of this country, that is where we expect the Government to make an increase and to ensure that a larger percentage of their aid is devoted to it. That is what the British electorate wants.
    Many African Governments are realising the necessity for that, and, despite the difficulties that might be involved, it is important that we develop in those areas so that in future they become less vulnerable to the possibility of famine and the failure of the rains.
    7·4 pm
    Mr. Robert Harvey: The House can draw some relief from the fact that the December rains are now coming to ease the famine situation. It can also draw some relief from the fact that emergency European Community and other aid has in the end more than matched the problem. We should congratulate those voluntary organisations that have also helped. The western world rose to the challenge, and the response was magnificent.
    However, three things are to be regretted. First, as the Select Committee report points out, in rising to the challenge, the Government found the necessary funds from within the existing aid budget and did not increase the overall provision. If anything justified a one-off emergency increase in funds, it was surely this. We do ourselves no good by appearing to be begrudging and ungenerous when we are not and by failing to understand the importance of aid in securing respect and influence throughout the world.
    Secondly, the House should wholeheartedly deplore the attitude of the eastern countries, which throughout the famine provided their allies with generous quantities of arms but no food.
    Thirdly, we should recognise that there is a limit to what can be done in the long term to lessen the effects of a disaster which is part natural and climatic and which is due also to agricultural policies practised in Ethiopia by a Government who place a greater premium on killing their own citizens than on saving them.
    Another disaster to which other hon. Members have already alluded affects the development of these countries and their future defences against famine. It is man-made, and western Governments bear a responsibility, even though it is a responsibility of accident rather than the conspiracy theory that is so often suggested by the Opposition. I am referring to the debt crisis which is squeezing the life out of Africa and Latin America.
    The dimensions of that crisis cannot be exaggerated. For nearly four years, real incomes in those two continents have fallen sharply after two decades of sustained economic expansion. In the shanty towns of the non-Asian Third world, where once there was hope, there is now an average loss of income of about 20 per cent. Malnutrition, infant mortality and crime are on the increase. Where once

    211
    income flowed from the richest countries to the poorest, billions are now being shipped the other way. The non-Asian countries are no longer underdeveloped—they are undeveloping.
    The reasons for the debt crisis are well documented and go back to the 1979–80 oil price shock which sucked about $600 billion mainly out of developing world economies, but also out of industrialised economies, to swell the coffers of a few oil-producing nations. Those oil producers could not spend the money fast enough and put much of it on short-term deposit with the commercial banks. The commercial banks could not find a home for those funds in the developed world, which was practising very restrictive economic policies, so they sent their loan managers to the Third world to offload money there.
    The scale of the in-responsible lending of those days beggars belief. Some of it went on worthwhile projects or to correct balance of payments deficits that were badly interrupted by the oil price shock, but of the $300 billion or so that went into Latin America during that period at least $100 billion went straight out again into foreign bank accounts. In big cities such as Lagos in Nigeria and Santiago in Chile, much of the money went into short-lived property booms. It all came to an end very quickly.
    A fair measure of blame must attach to the irresponsibility of the local Governments—most of them unelected—who borrowed the money. But the major western financial institutions that made it all possible also bear a large part of the responsibility, not to mention the western Governments that failed to regulate them. It is at least a consolation that most British banks were so much wiser and more cautious than their American counterparts.
    But, setting responsibility to one side, let us consider the way out of this financial holocaust for the Third world. For the West's ill-equipped financial regulatory institutions it has been a holding operation, of sending for the IMF with its prescriptions for putting economies right and of insisting on as many debt and service payments being met as possible. Yet the holding operation may no longer be sustainable and, indeed, may be becoming downright dangerous. The United States may no longer be able to run up the huge trade deficits which have allowed those countries to correct their balance of payments deficit.
    The risk of one country engaging in a sudden default or joining other countries in a concerted default have grown. In Peru a president has been elected who has effectively defaulted. For President Alfonsin of Argentina, for the democratic President of Brazil and even for the unelected President of Chile, the instant popularity that may be derived from standing up to the gringo bankers is pretty tempting. Even conservative opinion in those countries now considers that default is preferable to generating larger and larger balance of payments surpluses merely to keep the debt from growing in real terms.
    There is a considerable danger that the debt is playing into the hands of extremists in those countries. The debt problem is not easing for those countries in spite of the sacrifices that have been made. After four years of belt tightening the Latin American debt burden has grown from £200 billion to nearly £300 billion.
    For Africa, which lacks Latin America's financial muscle, the situation is desperate. Between 1973 and 1983 Africa's debt increased by 22 per cent. per annum which greatly exceeded the growth of output or exports. At the end of 1983 the total debt burden was £58 billion. In
    212
    addition, £5 billion was owed to the IMF and short-term debt and arrears amounted to £18 billion. This puts the total debt at £81 billion. Unofficial estimates of the debt range from £107 billion to £150 billion. The growth of the debt has not been matched by an increase in Africa's capacity to pay. Over the past decade all the main debt indicators deteriorated sharply. The debt service ratio increased from 9·2 per cent. to 22 per cent. When payment of short-term debts and arrears of payment to the IMF are included, the debt service ratio exceeded 50 per cent. in Africa. For some countries it exceeds 100 per cent.
    In Africa, as in Latin America, very little investment or modernisation is taking place. This can only prolong their recessions, diminish their competitiveness and create the conditions which have allowed famine to spread in Africa. In Africa the foreign exchange reserves have fallen to less than the value of one month's imports. Between 1980 and 1983 the level of new commitments to Africa fell by 45 per cent. Authoritative projections suggest that, even if there is a sustained recovery in OECD growth, Africa cannot expect to see any improvements in living standards over the coming decade and can probably expect to see the situation getting much worse.
    In the view of many economists, default in Africa and Latin America would clear the air. Today, with the possibility of default hanging over Latin America and Africa, no banker in his right mind is lending anything other than to ensure that his debts will be repaid. Economists argue that once default takes place Latin America and Africa's growth prospects will be improved as those countries will be relieved of their debt service burden. After defaulting once, out of dire necessity, debtor countries will be concerned to re-establish their creditworthiness and a second default can be ruled out in the medium term.
    The present bail-out policies have only served to prolong the uncertainty in the world financial markets. That is unhealthy for all. It makes sense to act before default. All kinds of mechanisms have been suggested. Reference has been made to the Baker plan, and that plan is a step in the right direction. The long-term solution is for the American Government and Governments like the British Government whose banks have some exposure in the Third world to step in with a once-and-for-all cash guarantee for those banks that undertake to write off most of their debts. This would be inflationary, but it would be containable at a time when world inflation is under control. This would, at a stroke, end the world debt uncertainty. It would win the West friends throughout the developing world and undermine extremists. It would allow those countries to resume their development which is beneficial to the world economy.
    Such a rescue must not be unconditional. The banks need to be penalised to some extent for the profligacy of their lending and should be required to contribute a percentage of their capital to the write-off. Measures should be taken to ensure that no bank is again permitted to expose itself in sovereign risk lending at past levels. The Governments and central banks should urge commercial banks or possibly development banks to resume lending to the developed world on a more modest scale for projects that guarantee profitability. Governments and central banks, while guaranteeing domestic deposit holders, might consider penalising overseas depositors to a degree that the retention of confidence in the banking system allows. This would get at both the exporters of capital from

    213
    [Mr. Robert Harvey]
    the Third world and the oil producers whose accumulation of financial surpluses, often at the expense of the developing world, led to the mad spending spree in the first place.
    The growing impoverishment of the Third world cannot continue. The poorest third of mankind cannot go on transferring money to the richest in punishment for offences which they should never have been allowed to commit. It has been said that a third of mankind is being crucified on a cross of debt. If the burden proves fatal, the ground will tremble under the feet of the crucifiers. It is time for the western Governments to assume responsibility for the matter, or they risk not just famine but political and economic upheaval which they may not be able to control.
    7·16 pm
    Mr. Reg Freeson: It gives me pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey). What the hon. Gentleman and other Members have said requires some response.
    I, like others, have raised some of the issues over previous months and years but we have been—I say this bluntly—fobbed off by replies, not necessarily from the Minister. The replies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my questions on the debt question have not been satisfactory.
    We have had a kind of holding operation but it cannot hold much longer. There must be some suggestion from the Government as to their policy and their aims in terms of a fundamental restructuring of the debt problem. If there is a restructuring, achieved by the write-off of debts, it needs to be coupled with a restructuring of the financial institutions and their relationship with the countries in Africa and elsewhere that they have funded. I emphasise the word funded. This will be a difficult and long-term problem to resolve.
    Time does not permit me to speculate or explore these matters. I wish to discuss one or two other points to which I have listened with great interest and concern this evening and which I have followed elsewhere on previous occasions. The level of aid has been referred to time and again. Even if we were to reach the United Nations target, that would not be good enough. The Labour Government, of which I was a member, did not do enough either, but the present Government have nearly halved the level of aid. We are entitled to a response on that.
    What is to be the level of support, under whatever heading, for agricultural development? I have sat through most of the debate and listened with great interest, but there has been hardly any mention of the relationship between the limited resources going on development aid and the obscenely huge resources going on arms trading and arms programmes. Arms trading is no longer a marginal acivity. It is essential to Britain and is becoming increasingly central to the industrial economies of ever more countries.
    Unless we recognise that relationship in moral terms —by heaven, that is good enough—and in economic terms, we are hypocritical if we put our hands on our hearts and say that we really want to resolve the problem of hunger. The problem could be resolved. Unless, however, we are prepared to redirect resources away from arms trading, which increases instability and therefore insecurity and the threat of war, we shall achieve nothing.
    214
    The criticism does not lie just with the Soviet Union in Ethiopia—it extends to Britain and other countries in the middle east, Africa and other parts of the world. Unless we are prepared to take on board that economic, political and moral link, we are hypocritical in saying that we want to end hunger.
    That is all that I want to say today. I hope that we shall get a genuine response from the Minister to the issues that I have summarised, having listened to most of the debate.
    7·23 pm
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) has widened a fairly wide-ranging debate still further and I cannot guarantee to answer all of the points that he has raised. However, I shall try to cover as much ground as possible in what has been, by general consent, an excellent debate. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) said that it was the best informed debate on a foreign policy subject that he had heard in the House. I do not think that we ought to congratulate ourselves too much, but it can be said quite fairly that it involved people with a great deal of knowledge.
    Debates on aid have increased in quality in the past few years. Perhaps the House is matching the growing interest that is to be found among the British public. I have found it interesting to listen to our debates.
    I pay tribute to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and especially to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw). The Committee has served us well with the care with which it has studied these issues. My hon. Friend asked whether our development programme has been lamed by famine—a vivid phrase. He talked a little about the role of the European Community in famine relief and food aid and of the need for agricultural policies which will encourage food production. That was another of the debate's motifs.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others mentioned resources. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made a passionate plea that commercial considerations should have nothing to do with the aid programme. I could not help noticing that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) popped in a few moments ago. Did he mention the word "Westland"? I wonder whether there is a concerted Liberal party line on these matters.
    In paragraphs 12 and 13 of its first report, the Select Committee argues that if the money from slippages had not been spent on famine relief in Africa it would have been spent on development projects and that it is not possible to establish how the ODA's expectation, as opposed to firm plans for the disbursement of the ODA programme, has been altered to allow for this provision of £27·75 million of famine relief in this financial year. It says that much of what we have spent on famine relief would otherwise have been spent on development activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud seemed to imply that it would all have been spent on development activities, and talked of £85 million—the spending rate this year—if it had not been for the emergency famine relief operation.

    215
    I do not claim that none of the money spent on famine relief might in other circumstances have been spent on longer-term development. I have never claimed that and did not do so in our response to the Select Committee. I said:
    "Most of our relief aid to famine-affected countries in Africa during the last twelve months has come from allocations already agreed for food aid, for disaster relief and for emergency action under the European Development Fund. None of our long-term development assistance programme has been cut to make room for emergency assistance; there has been unavoidable slippage of expenditure which has enabled some funds to be switched to emergency use."
    It might be helpful if I were to say what was available in 1984–85 when we spent £95 million on famine-related operations in Africa. It is easier to take that financial year because it is over and the figures are available. We provided £17 million from the in-year contingency reserve in the aid programme, £15 million from our annual bilateral food aid allocations—we have repeatedly said that emergency food aid should have first call on food aid budgets — £47 million for food aid and famine relief contributed through the EC, £10 million, not £86 million, allocated as a result of unavoidable slippage in other activities in the aid programme and £6 million of additional money from the Ministry of Defence last year towards the cost of the Ethiopian airlift.
    It is clear that the great bulk of that money would not have been spent on development if there had been no famine. No bilateral or multilateral programme has been reduced in 1984–85 or this year to make way for emergency assistance. Cuts in planned activities seriously disrupt any attempt to run a long-term development programme and we are anxious to avoid them. By flexible management of the funds available, however, we have succeeded in avoiding cuts and concentrating on greatest needs. In 1984–85, only £10 million of the slippage money could have been expected to go to development work, although not necessarily. Some of the contingency reserve might also have been directed to that area. The essential purpose of the contingency reserve is to deal with emergencies and the unexpected, not with long-term development that clearly requires planning.
    Although I acknowledge that some of the money could have gone to development, from the facts it is clear that we have not knocked a huge sum of money off the development programme to provide for famine relief. We have used our resources to best effect. I repeat that the Community is now increasingly, although belatedly, targeting its food aid programme to areas where there is real hunger rather than pursuing the indiscriminate and untargeted food aid policy for which it has been criticised for a long time. We are now making progress.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister is seeking to excuse slippage because it is small, but the House is worried that the aid budget is too small and is concerned about cuts.
    Mr. Raison: That is a different point which is open to debate. The Select Committee's charge is that there has been a substantial diversion of funds. I believe that the facts that I have given to the House dispel that accusation.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend explain whether the £47 million worth of food aid through the EC would have been expended in a year in which there was no famine?
    Mr. Raison: Almost all of the sum would have been expended. I shall write to my hon. Friend on the details of that if he wishes. That amount is our share of Community action, of which we pay just under one fifth.
    I shall say a few words about the areas of Africa where famine poses the greatest threat. For understood reasons, Britain has concentrated on Ethiopia and the Sudan. That does not imply that other countries do not face and continue to face serious problems, but multilateral institutions and the French, because of their relationship with francophone Africa, have concentrated their efforts in those areas. Britain has contributed an enormous amount to Ethiopia. As the House would wish, I must refer to the marvellous effort, which is ending this week, of the RAF Hercules team in Ethiopia. It returns amid the plaudits of everyone.
    Of the 1·3 million tonnes of food aid pledged, more than I million tonnes has been delivered to Ethiopia. The shortage of road transport vehicles that was very bad earlier is now much relieved by the establishment of a new truck fleet under the auspices of the world food programme. Sufficient money has been pledged to cover the operating costs of the new fleet. There has been considerable improvement.
    The prospects for 1986 look brighter, but it cannot be said that the famine is over, and further assistance will be needed. The recent Food and Agricultural Organisation's crop assessment mission's first rough estimate of the harvest recently collected is that the total food crop will be about 6·3 million tonnes. That is about 13 per cent. below the normal level in the early 1980s of 7·3 mil lion tonnes. On those estimates, 5·8 million people will continue to face food shortages and about 950,000 tonnes of food aid will still be required for Ethiopia. I cannot give the House details, but the signs are that the required amount will be met by pledges, which have not yet been delivered, from the United States, the European Community and Britain. We must ensure that that happens. The international community is committed to ensuring that that is the case.
    It is not possible for us to turn our attention away front the basic food aid programme, but we can consider the next phase of rehabilitation. As I told the House recently, we are providing £2 million for agricultural rehabilitation and £1 million to improve the water supply in Wollo. The EC is also setting up a rehabilitation programme.
    There have been and still are great problems in the Sudan. I intend to visit the Sudan shortly after Christmas to see the circumstances myself. I shall not give the House details, but the essence is that there has been a good harvest. However, there will be a problem getting the food from where it is grown to other parts of the country that are in desperate need. I do not need to remind the House of the terrible difficulties that have been experienced in transporting food in the Sudan during the past year, but there are signs of improvement. I assure the House that we are deeply concerned about what happens in that country and we shall do all that we can to help.
    The longer-term problem of assistance to basic agriculture has marked the debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the importance of population policies, which are interwoven with the problem. It is vital to help basic subsistence and peasant agriculture. I have heard some wise words about cash crops. The mania about cash crops that occasionally arises is nonsensical. Cash crops have an important place, but it

    217
    [Mr. Raison]
    is essential to ensure that the basic agriculture of developing countries is helped. That is a major part of our aid programme. I should like to couple that view with what has been said about debt. I cannot go into much detail, but I shall give a topical instance of the way in which we are doing our best, through the aid programme, to deal with those major problems.
    Zambia has had enormous economic difficulties because of its dependence on the copper industry, which is in serious decline. Zambia is faced with severe debt problems but it has great agricultural potential, which is not being fulfilled. A meeting is taking place today in Paris, organised by the World Bank, to tackle Zambia's specific problem. At the meeting, our representatives have undertaken to provide a further £13 million worth of aid for Zambia's requirements during 1986. That sum consists of £8 million from our regular funds and £5 million in association with the World Bank's special facility. Those amounts are grants and we recognise that Zambia is not in a position to undertake new loan obligations. We propose to provide a special grant of £1–5 million to permit the clearance of arrears of payment on aid loans made some time ago, which the Government of Zambia owe the British Government, up to the end of this month. We have pledged almost £30 million to Zambia in six months. I hope that other donors will respond in the same spirit. I believe that other donors will respond in the same spirit. I believe that that shows that the Government can mount a well directed substantial aid programme that will be widely appreciated.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) mentioned the problem of debt. In effect, my hon. Friend and the hon. Member called for the writing off of Africa's debt.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: My request concerned at least a major share of the debt of the lesser and least developed sub-Saharan African countries.
    Mr. Raison: I accept that. No doubt my hon. Friend would have made a similar qualification. The Government do not believe that that sort of global approach to debt is the right solution. We do not believe that writing off debt in a massive way lays the foundation for a lasting solution to Africa's problems. It could have a dramatic short-term effect, but in our view it would not meet the fundamental needs of Africa. We believe that the debt must be tackled in the light of each country's circumstances and in the context of basic policy reform and adjustment measures.
    218
    We believe that this can normally be achieved best in conjunction with support from the IMF and the World Bank.
    Debt rescheduling is being faced by the Paris club arrangements. As the record shows, they have proved responsive to the needs of individual countries and seem to be the right approach. We do not believe that the answer lies in global solutions, which inevitably will undermine the confidence of the banking community as a whole. It is no good saying, "What does that matter?", because it is that community which produces the money. It is no good going for a massive global panacea. We must have a realistic policy, and that is what we are pursuing. It must be coupled with the policy reforms which are being recognised increasingly as the essence of what has to be done in Africa.
    The House knows that there is a great measure of agreement between the principal donors, both institutional and national, about policy needs, such as pricing policy for agriculture and realistic currency valuation. That is all to the good. Particularly encouraging are the increasing signs of acceptance in African countries that what I have described is that which needs to be done.
    Mention has been made of the Harare declaration. I add to that, perhaps to my own surprise, that the communique at the end of the OAU summit meeting in July included some remarks about the development of agriculture in Africa. I do not wish to be patronising, but that seemed to show very good sense. The remarks of the OAU are much in line with the policies that we are advancing. I accept fully the argument of those who say that the problems that must be faced are of enormous size. No one can doubt that, but there is emerging gradually a form of coherent strategy. It is a painful process, but a strategy is emerging. If we have the guts to pursue it and if we can persuade the African Governments to pursue it, there is hope that we shall get somewhere. The Baker plan at Seoul was in line with that, and we have studied it with great care and sympathy.
    I believe that the debate has been of real value to the House, especially to myself. I am grateful to all those who have participated in it. I hope that the House will accept that the policies that we are pursuing are those that stand the best chance of working to deal with the grave problem of which we are all aware.
    It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Question was deferred pursuant to paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates) and to the resolution [12 December].

  Register of Members' Interests
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected amendment (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and others, amendment (d) in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and others, amendment (e) in the name of the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and others, and amendment (g) in the name of the right hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).
  I propose that there should be a joint debate on the main Question and on the selected amendments. At 10 o'clock, in accordance with today's business of the House motion, I shall call upon Members to move their amendments formally in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper. When the amendments have been disposed of, I shall put the main Question.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and as it will continue for only a relatively short time I appeal for short contributions.
  7·44 pm
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in the last Session of Parliament; welcomes the intention of the Committee stated in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Report to keep under review both Parliamentary lobbying and the appropriate scope of the declaration and registration required of Members who are so engaged; emphasises that it is the personal responsibility of each Member to have regard to his public position and the good name of Parliament in any work he undertakes or any interests he acquires; confirms that the scope of the requirement to register remunerated trades, professions or vocations includes any remunerated activity in the fields of public relations and political and parliamentary advice and consultancy; and in particular agrees with the Select Committee in its statement in paragraph 10 of its Report in regard to the registration and declaring of clients that the services which require such registration and, where appropriate, declaration: 'include as well as any action connected with any proceedings in the House or its Committees, the sponsoring of functions in the Palace, making representations to Ministers, Civil Servants and other Members, accompanying delegations to Ministers and the like.'.
  I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I may be the first to conform with your exhortation for tolerably brief contributions. I believe that the motion is drawn to enable a reasonably wide-ranging debate on Members' interests. I shall deal first with the modest proposals of the Select Committee and then turn to the wider issues. I shall speak very briefly to meet your wishes, Mr. Speaker.
  The Select Committee's report made three specific recommendations which the Committee believed would lead to greater openness among those with access to Parliament—for example, Lobby journalists, research assistants and officers of all-party groups. These recommendations are contained in amendment (e) in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and others. The motion does not propose acceptance of these specific proposals, and the reason is straightforward. I think that the major current public interest concerns the interests of Members. Therefore, I do not recommend acceptance of amendment (e). I emphasise that my view is related more to timing and tactics than to the merits of the argument.
  I turn to the aspects of the Select Committee's report which relate to Members. The Committee undertook to
  220
  keep under review parliamentary lobbying and the appropriate scope of the declaration required of Members engaged in this activity. Furthermore, the Committee set out a clear definition of the type of services which, if performed for individual clients, would require the registration and, where appropriate, declaration of these clients' names. This definition made particular reference to the sponsoring of functions within the Palace, making representations to Ministers, civil servants and other Members, and accompanying delegations to Ministers. This clarification is embodied in the motion. This will make clear what constitutes lobbying activities which are expected to be registered. It will also sustain the register as a support for the formal declaration of interest which has been the means whereby the House has been able to judge these matters in debate over the decades.
  Traditionally, proceedings in this place have worked on a basis of trust and honour among Members. The way in which the practice of declaring an interest has developed is a clear sign that declaring and, more recently, registering can work only in an atmosphere of cooperation.
  In 1969, the Select Committee on Members' Interests recommended that the requirement to declare one's interests during any proceedings of the House or its Committees, or in any communication with Ministers, other Members and civil servants, should be reinforced by a resolution of the House.
  That resolution was passed on 22 March 1974, when a decision in principle was taken that there should be art additional requirement to register. The continuing original requirement to declare as well as to register is a sign that the register is intended to buttress the practice of declaring and not to replace it. Indeed, declaration in debate and in the proceedings of Select Committee work remains central and crucial in enabling the House to assess and evaluate any interest.
  Some have argued that the register is vitiated because it is incomplete. The resolution of the House sets out categories of interest that should be registered; but the interpretation is left to individual Members. Given the nature of the register and the assumption on which it is based, I think that this degree of self-regulation is a common sense approach.
  On the other hand, a small number of Members have declined to co-operate and to file a return of interests. Hitherto, the House has not attempted to exact any discipline for this disregard of a resolution of the House. I believe that a Member who avowedly disregards a resolution of this House of Commons diminishes his parliamentary stature.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: He has resigned.
  Mr. Biffen: Some have suggested that a register might have statutory force. I believe that this proposal encounters the most formidable problems of definition, and would compound rather than ease our difficulties. The House, I think, has been modest but realistic to require declaration and registration within the framework of a resolution of the House.
  Of course, I agree that the register has only limited objectives. Even so, I think that it has a valuable role, taken alongside the practice of declaration. That role is clearly enhanced by the full declaration by Members of the

  221
  required information, and by the frequent updating of that information. I believe that the Select Committee will continue to pay attention to those matters and to advise and remind Members accordingly. Meanwhile, the House would be well advised to take realistic measures that will add to the authority of the register, and I believe that it has that opportunity this evening.
  I wish to refer to the wider issues of interest which properly concern the House.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: While we are talking about wider measures, some of us would like to raise the matter of the value of such contacts with outside business interests or with investments being included in the register. Last Thursday I intervened in business questions and asked the Leader of the House whether the Prime Minister would be coming to the debate. I suggested that if she did not attend, it might be because she is more interested in pursuing local authorities such as Liverpool and less interested in pursuing the antics of Lloyd's, because one in eight Tory Members is a member of Lloyd's. The Leader of the House accused me of low-grade McCarthyism when I made that point. I take this opportunity to apologise to him. I had my facts entirely wrong. It is not 47 Tory Members who are members of Lloyd's, but 55. Therefore, one in seven Tory Members is moonlighting in the House when his real interests lie in business outside.
  Mr. Biffen: As ever, I appear as an inadequate alternative to the Prime Minister. I can judge only on the extraordinary moderation of my language last Thursday. I shall now continue with the issues of interest that go wider than the register.
  Amendment (g) in the name of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) reminds us of those wider considerations. It is 10 years since the matter was debated in the House. Thus, I think it is wholly understandable that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to have further consideration on issues such as the declaration of the financial nature of an interest, and whether an interest should affect the right to vote on public Bills, as well as the declaration of interests during Question Time.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Biffen: Please allow me to go a little further. I shall not detain the House too long, but I should like to place on record my view of the general issues.
  Some hon. Members have argued that Members should not be permitted outside interests. I do not share that view. I believe that there is advantage in the House having Members with outside paid interests. I think that it adds to the experience and judgment of the House. However, I also believe that such a tradition of outside interests can proceed only if we have an effective convention of declaration.
  I believe that the House is best served by the declaration of interest in the proceedings of the House in the traditional sense covering debate and the work of Select Committees. I believe that it can operate only if there is mutual respect between Members and an acceptance of good faith and propriety. That somewhat traditional view of declaring an
  222
  interest has been supplemented with the use of a register. The register should be sustained for its supportive role to declaration.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Can a register mean anything if it allows people to get financial gain from a particular company and, providing he registers that gain, can continue to lobby in the House and cast votes? I believe that a person who has vested interests in obtaining financial reward from a company should not be able to vote for that company.
  Mr. Biffen: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I said that I would give my own view on that issue and that I would say whether it is appropriate, whatever may be my view, for the matter to be referred to the Select Committee for further consideration.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis rose—
  Mr. Biffen: I shall not give way.
  In my view, our current convention involving declaration and register strikes a balance between openness in declaring the source of the interest and legitimate privacy by not expecting the Member to declare the financial extent of that interest. It is a balance that has served the House, and I do not favour its disturbance. Furthermore, I take that view not only on account of privacy. I believe that the practical problems of definition would frustrate the objective of recording the financial scale of interests.
  However, I recognise the general interest in that question and, having made my own views clear, I am content with amendment (g) in the name of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, which suggests that the Select Committee should pay particular attention to the amount of remuneration contained in an interest.
  The second major problem that arises from the amendment of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West concerns whether interest should limit a Member's ability to vote on a public Bill. It has long been held that interest precluded voting on a private Bill, but there have been no corresponding inhibitions on a public Bill.
  Once again, I think it is reasonable to seek the opinions of the Select Committee on the matter and I am certainly content that the House should so decide. None the less, I feel that Members' interests and the ambit of legislation run so wide and are so elastic as to make it near impossible to devise a workable rule in those matters. Even so, as with the amount of a remunerated interest, the House could be misunderstood if it was not prepared to have those broad matters generally and constructively considered by the Select Committee.
  I feel that I have said sufficient to open the debate. I conclude by thanking the Select Committee for its report and by asking the House to endorse its helpful recommendations on Members' registration of lobbying interests.
  I ask the House to desist, at least for the time being, from extending the register to the lobby and research assistants. I acknowledge that we should refer to the Select Committee the matters of interest and parliamentary questions, of quantified financial interest, and restrictions on voting. The House should be seen to be prepared to have considered all those matters, although I have made my own views clear on their merit and practicability. However, above all, I hope that the debate will assert our

  223
  concern that Parliament will continue to be helpfully served by interest and that the existence of interest will be proclaimed in such a manner that hon. Members will properly describe the reality and the forum of the House.
  7·57 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. He should move his amendment at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Williams: I wanted to be sure that we would debate all the individual points. I shall be as quick as possible and I shall forgo any attempt to wind up because I want as many hon. Members as possible from both sides of the House to be able to take part.
  We should emphasise that this should essentially be a House of Commons debate, not a party debate.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones indicated assent.
  Mr. Williams: The Whip seems to agree.
  In making our points, I hope that we shall not make a football of the reputation of the House. I was reminded of that in a rather amusing way by a telephone call that I received yesterday morning from a charming young lady from a television channel that I shall not identify. She asked me what line I would be taking in the debate on behalf of the Opposition. After I had explained, she said that I had been very reasonable but she asked whether I would mind if she interviewed someone else instead.
  I accept the conclusion of the Chairman, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), and his colleagues in the early part of the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests that it would be inappropriate to have an exclusive register of lobbyists, not because we do not want to know who the lobbyists are, but because we would be creating an elite who would gain a commercial advantage from the existence of such a register even if it could be properly defined. The conclusions of the report are well reached and well argued.
  I shall deal with the proposals in the report as embedded in the amendment in the name of the Chairman. On the section relating to the lobby and the Press Gallery, I welcome the steps that have already been taken by the lobby through its practice notes to try to ensure that it limits the misuse of information that is available to it. We must bear it in mind that the lobby enjoys early information, often well before hon. Members enjoy it. They enjoy easy access to Ministers, hon. Members and off-record briefings.
  For that reason, it does not seem unreasonable to me that we should adopt the recommendation in paragraph 1 of the amendment of the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), which requires the declaration of relevant interests. That is an important point to emphasise. We are asking not for information that is irrelevant, but just for relevant information in relation to lobby journalists' privileged positions.
  The amendment also refers to secretaries and researchers. I accept that there are some abuses, although with most secretaries and researchers there is no such allegation from either side of the House. However, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Wealden's amendment goes a little too far. I should welcome his comments. He requires relevance for the lobby journalists,
  224
  who have greater privilege and preference in access in the House, but for secretaries and researchers he requires registration of any gainful occupation. I do not think that it matters if the secretary does a little work on a Saturday afternoon, typing for the retailer at the end of the high street. While I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman intended, I suspect that that is what is captured in the amendment. The same applies to the all-party and registered groups. I agree that there should be registration and disclosure, but I wonder why the Committee chose to exclude the use of the word "relevant" in those two cases. The amendment would have been strengthened if relevance had been required in all three categories.
  I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his support for the amendment in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). It is an attempt to take us a step ahead. We are not attempting to prejudge or predetermine the outcome, but there are areas of key concern that have been voiced on both sides of the House that merit investigation. That is all that we are asking for—that the Committee, on behalf of the House, gathers together all the evidence and brings up to date the recommendations that it would like to put before the House.
  The first issue is voting. 1 readily accept that there are problems. For example, what do we do on Second Reading if an hon. Member has a nominal interest in one subsection? Is he debarred from voting on the whole 13111? That difficult issue needs to be looked at. I do not want to go into specific instances, but the difficulty is more acute in the context of a Standing Committee or a Select Committee when there is a relatively small number of votes and people have vested interests. Therefore, we should consider whether in some circumstances we should extend the current restrictions in relation to private legislation. I hope that the hon. Member for Wealden's Committee will take that on board.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I intervene not on the basis of party politics. However, we know that several hon. Members are sponsored by a trade union. It would be absurd if they could not vote on industrial relations legislation or legislation connected with an industry in which they were sponsored. How would the right hon. Gentleman phrase any such legislation or a recommendation to prevent that happening?
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to do the very thing that I have tried not to do and asked the House not to do — to prejudge the issue. I accept readily, and have said to my hon. Friends, that if we are not careful, the measure could rebound to the disadvantage of both sides, inappropriately. We need to bear that in mind.
  A formula has been suggested for parliamentary questions involving taxable income. That would be for the Committee to look at and it is not for me to give snap judgments on the basis of no evidence or information.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: This point should be answered. There is a great difference between a sponsored Member of Parliament who receives nothing through being sponsored by a trade union—the pittance that he is paid goes to the constituency party—and a Member who receives £8,500, which was quoted in a recent television programme. That amount was received by a Conservative Member representing a Channel tunnel company.
  Mr. Williams: I am not dissenting from the basis of my hon. Friend's point, but all that he is doing is emphasising the need for the matter to be examined coolly and outside the rather overheated atmosphere of the Chamber. Indirect or non-monetary interests will have to be considered. Benefits in kind need to be taken into account and evaluated. All that we are asking is that the Committee should look at that.
  With regard to parliamentary questions, we must bear in mind that a question can attract as much publicity as a speech. A question costs money and can provide rapid access to new information or be an easy way of supplying processed information to the questioner. It is a valuable service for those who have access to it. I float this as an idea. This option might be difficult for supplementaries, but there would be no problem in having a second box on the question form where one puts an "x", as we do when we want a priority written answer, when one submits a question in which one has an interest. When the question appears on the Order Paper, whether it is written or oral, there would be an asterisk showing that an interest has been declared. That would resolve the problem. It is done in the European Assembly, but I hardly dare mention that as an example.
  Our amendment also refers to the amount of remuneration. That matter is of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). He wanted to be here but, as the Leader of the House understands, there are unavoidable reasons preventing him from being present. We must recollect that declaration of amounts was rejected in the Select Committee report 10 years ago. We accepted that evidence, but we should look at it again. There have been changes and an expansion in the interests of the House. In the context of the study that we are proposing, it would be appropriate to study whether the amount should be declared and, if so, what the guidelines should be and how they should be arrived at. An example is the value of a share in an unquoted company, and the value of benefits in kind.
  I do not want to appear to avoid the crunch question of enforceability. It is not in our amendment. Like many hon. Members, we lived under what proved to be the illusion that the register is unenforceable. I should welcome the guidance of the Leader of the House. I read the speeches of the then right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, in 1975. A specious argument was put forward at the time. I ask for the Leader of the House's guidance on whether the register as it stands is enforceable. No one suggests that a resolution of the House should supersede statute law, which is what Mr. Powell claimed in 1975. The resolution is not intended to do that. Paragraph 37 of the Committee's report in 1974 is headed:
  "Enforcement of the Requirements to Register".
  It states:
  "As the Clerk of the House pointed out, 'The ultimate sanction behind the obligation upon Members to register would be the fact that it was imposed by Resolution of the House … There can be no doubt that the House might consider either a refusal to register as required by its Resolutions or the wilful furnishing of misleading or false information to be a contempt'."
  On that basis, it seems that the same remedies are available in our internal disciplines in the House as when, for example, Mr. Speaker deals with other issues relating to contempt of the House.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has been fair, but I ask him to look at amendment (d) in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and others. Is not that a disqualification? If an hon. Member does not declare in the register, he may not take his seat. Is not that a matter for primary legislation, not resolution of this place?
  Mr. Williams: I looked at the amendment closely. My name is not on it because I do not have the hon. Gentleman's advantage of being a lawyer. I could not make up my mind whether it is as he describes. If my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wants to deal with that himself, I am only too happy to relinquish the responsibility to him. I suspect that it is unnecessary, regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect, although I would welcome the guidance of the Leader of the House on whether my proposition is valid.
  Is it necessary, as the Select Committee suggested in 1975–76 in the House of Commons document 479, that the House should render the resolution binding by incorporating it in the Standing Orders? As the matter stands now, does it have any mandatory basis? If the Leader of the House can give satisfactory answers when he replies on that aspect, it could preclude us from seeking to divide the House on certain other issues.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: What the House can do does not depend on memoranda written by Clerks. From time out of mind when the House has passed a resolution saying something is a contempt, that does not have to be embodied in Standing Orders and so it remains until and unless the House alters that resolution. The House can expel hon. Members who place themselves in contempt of its resolutions. It does not need a memorandum from the Clerk to make that known to each and every hon. Member.
  Mr. Williams: I quoted what the Clerk said because it seemed to me that he would stand in greater repute on legal matters than I and it was contained in the report that came to the House.
  It seemed to me that the resolution was already enforceable and that is why I asked the Leader of the House whether he would make it clear whether the recommendation made in 1975–76 was necessary. My reading of the matter is that the resolution as it stands is already enforceable.
  Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. As you have selected amendment (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), two of his hon. Friends and three Members of the Liberal party, not a single one of whom has had the courtesy to turn up in the House, is it your intention that that should be voted upon?
  Mr. Speaker: They may turn up, and in any event I have already announced my selection.
  8·12 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: May I take your advice, Mr. Speaker, and, I hope, be given your help? The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made an interesting comment about my amendment and suggested that the insertion in two of the recommendations of the word "relevant" might make them acceptable to the House. Would it be all right if one of my hon. Friends— I know that one is present—moved a

  227
  manuscript amendment later today so that the word "relevant" could be inserted'? Although the recommendations are sound, it might make for greater acceptance if that were done.
  Mr. Speaker: May I consider the hon. Gentleman's point before I rule on it?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
  I thank the Leader of the House for finding time to debate the Select Committee's report. It is the first time that we have had one of our reports debated and I am thankful for that. I also welcome his comments and the fact that he endorses so much of it, but naturally I am sorry that he does not agree with our three main recommendations. However, I understand his reasons and I am sure he would equally understand if I pursue the matter. I also express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West for the way in which he has received the report in even more generous terms.
  It is particularly important for the Select Committee to have an opportunity to test the opinion of the House. The cohesion and strength of purpose of the Committee depends on its understanding of what the House will or will not bear. There is little value in producing a report which impinges so personally on hon. Members if the Committee ends up either hopelessly divided or completely out of touch with the feeling of the House. That is no way to make progress. I hope that the House will note that the Committee has met, deliberated on the matters and presented a unanimous report.
  I welcome the debate for a wider reason. The House is conscious, and rightly so—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made this point—of the need to maintain its integrity. It recognises the fact that to do so it is essential that hon. Members are indeed honourable and open and honest with one another. Whatever political differences divide us, we know that this place depends on trust and that it is trust in one another's integrity which unites us as well as maintaining our confidence in our proceedings.
  Equally—it is a point worth making in view of the interest shown by the media—we are answerable to the electorate who recognise our need to demonstrate to the public our concern and so earn their confidence in us and in the good name of Parliament. I think that we can all agree that the Select Committee is just one part of that process. It cannot do the whole job. That is why in 1969 the Select Committee recommended that the House make the declaration of interest mandatory and the register was set up in 1974. I emphasis the word "mandatory". The need to declare is not, as has often been said, and most recently repeated ad nauseam in the media, a voluntary requirement; it is mandatory. So far only one hon. Member—
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Ex-Member.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: —one former Member has refused to declare and register his interests. We all know that nothing has happened as a consequence. The resolution of the House has not been enforced. We have invited the House on previous occasions so to do but it has decided not to enforce it. If that is the view of the House, the Committee would be most happy to reconsider the
  228
  matter. Undoubtedly the present system is cumbersome and unwieldy and is sometimes described as a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
  Be that as it may, in 1977 the Select Committee recommended to the House that we might pursue the matter of enforcement through a Standing Order and the Standing Order—
  Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that if he accepted the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) the problem could be solved?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is one way of solving it. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who is a hardworking Member of the Committee. I would prefer not to pass any judgment but just to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there is another way of dealing with the matter through the Standing Order procedure.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Making it a Standing Order does not deal with it. The only thing that deals with it is a motion proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to take enforcement action against a Member who has divided, whether it be a Standing Order or a resolution. Merely making it a Standing Order does not deal with it if the Standing Order is not enforced.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It seemed to the Committee in 1977 a rather less cumbersome and simpler way of enforcement than going through the procedure of asking the House to agree to a resolution and therefore to bring a Member into the contempt of the House. Those are matters we are only too happy to look at.
  I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I say one or two things that may be obvious to some but not to others and less so perhaps to those who read our affairs and those who are involved in public relations, lobbying and other practices. Therefore, I hope that I may have the indulgence of hon. Members.
  We well accept that the report is limited in scope. No Committee members considered that it was the last word on the subject of lobbying or Members' interests. However, contrary to what some may think, once the Committee produces a report it is not just disbanded. It can consider representations and complaints and to keep matters under active review.
  I am grateful that the motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House acknowledges and welcomes the fact that we intend to keep these matters under review. The motion says that it
  "welcomes the intention of the Committee … to keep under review both Parliamentary lobbying and the appropriate scope of the declaration and registration required of Members who are so engaged."
  Surely that is right.
  Among the duties laid upon us by Standing Order No. 107 is the duty
  "to consider any proposals made by Members or others as to the form and contents of the Register … to consider what classes of person (if any) other than Members ought to be required to register and to make recommendations upon these and ocher matters which are relevant."
  Some three years ago the Select Committee decided to consider whether classes of person other than Members should be required to register. The Select Committee had previously considered that question in 1974 and concluded that registration should be restricted to hon. Members

  229
  [Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith]
  only. However, the Committee envisaged that, with the passage of time, the balance of advantage might change. Indeed, with the passage of time we have become aware of the growth in lobbying, that access to the precincts of this House has become more sought after, that the number of all-party and registered parliamentary groups has increased and that there has been a veritable flood of research assistants, notably this summer, who invade the House—
  Mr. Adley: Haunt it.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I would not say that they haunt it—indeed, some of them are extremely attractive.
  The committee embarked upon its inquiry into whether the register should be extended—
  Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman take on board the fact that there may be people—especially outside the Chamber—more interested in the fact that 55 Tory Members of Parliament are moonlighting by working here when their real interests lie outside the House? The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) holds the chairmanship of 29 companies and a further three directorships. I do not know how he manages to attend the House at all. Remarks about secretaries and research assistants pale into insignificance—[Interruption.] Come on, Mr. Speaker, let me have a bit of protection.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will sit down. He intervened to ask a question, but he appears to be making a contribution to the debate. He must put his question.
  Mr. Nellist: Do not remarks about secretaries and research assistants pale into insignificance compared with the number of Tory Members of Parliament who moonlight by turning up in this Chamber when their real careers lie outside the House?
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman moonlight when he is here or when he is serving as a county councillor?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is not following my argument. If he shows a little more patience, I am sure that he will find that everything that should be put into its proper perspective will be so put.
  While we are conscious of the growth of professional lobbying during recent years, we are also aware of the risk of conflict of interest where hon. Members are professionally engaged in that area. We all recognise that an hon. Member must be free to discharge his duties on behalf of his constituents and the country at large. Equally, it is the right of any citizen to represent his interests through his Member of Parliament and to lobby. Whether they are companies, trade unions or charitable bodies, they all do it; it is part of the democratic process.
  It was in trying to balance those considerations about lobbyists, both in terms of difficulties of definition and the wish not to appear to give any group special privilege, that the Committee rejected the idea of a register. I am grateful to have the endorsement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on that point.
  On whether to extend the scope of what hon. Members are currently asked to declare, the Committee decided that
  230
  the balance struck between openness and privacy was about right. Nevertheless, it had received worrying evidence about doubtful practices, so it undertook to keep the matter under review, together with any further developments in lobbying techniques. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West will gather from what I have said that keeping the matter under review is exactly what we mean. Indeed, the Committee decided that it would be reasonable to consider some of the current practices and whether the constraints imposed upon voting intentions and the amounts earned should be declared.
  The Committee considered whether to extend the register to other classes of person. It found that unexpected use was being made of the privileged access to Parliament by some of those holding passes to the Palace. Allegations were made that those with access to the building were providing a paid service to people who were other than their stated employers. That is why the Committee recommended that, for example, journalists should register other interests.
  The Committee received evidence that some of those engaged in professional public relations work secured passes as Members' research assistants and secretaries to gain full and prompt access to parliamentary papers. The Committee said that they should declare their interests if they were earning over and above what they could earn for the express purpose stated for their attending the House. It is important that when hon. Members talk to a lobby journalist or research assistant they should be sure that they actually work here and do not represent some other interests.
  It was not strictly within the Committee's competence to consider the use of subterfuge. However, many people find it disagreeable, as did the Committee, that the use of subterfuge is necessary to be able promptly to obtain parliamentary papers. It is clear that the solution is to provide a parliamentary bookshop with public access. I know that one is planned for the new building, but that is some years ahead. In the meantime, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider setting up a temporary bookshop.
  The Committee considered the question of what to do with all-party groups—now called registered groups, although they are not always registered. It discovered that some of those groups received support from outside organisations, but that that was not always declared. It felt that the House should know about that, and recommended that the groups should declare any outside sources of income. If the groups had working for them someone who was not an hon. Member but someone representing another organisation, the House should know about that also.
  The Committee's recommendations are set out in the amendment and are designed to secure openness. What we are requesting should be registered is far less than that which Members are asked to declare publicly. The register would not be made public, but maintained for the use of hon. Members. I am sure that the officers of all-party and registered groups would be happy to furnish the necessary information, and the representatives of secretaries and research assistants have expressed their willingness to register.
  Curiously enough, and I do not wish to offend the powerful fourth estate as many of them are friends of mine, to date it has been only the representatives of the Lobby and Gallery—those journalists who are

  231
  demanding that the Members' register should be extended—who have objected to being asked to register the gainful uses to which they put their privileged access to the House.
  I should like to refer to the Committee's future work and put it into perspective. I hope that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West heard the message, when he was at the far end of the Chamber, that we shall look into his suggestions. The Committee has already discussed informally arid agreed to an hon. Member's request that we should consider whether an hon. Member should be called upon to declare the amount of remuneration as well as the source. It will not be easy to determine this matter, especially as some hon. Members who have put their names to one motion believe that Members should rely solely on their parliamentary salaries.
  I do not want to debate the issue but shall make one point as an illustration of the problems that we are likely to face. Due to the vagaries of the election process, there is a rapid turnover of Members. Members come here knowing that their life expectancy in the first round is probably only four or five years. It is not surprising that some people with family responsibilities, knowing that they have a short spell ahead of them, cling to the lifeline of an outside interest, and I think that we should be generous in that respect. We all know that Members' needs and personal responsibilities vary. There is no career structure, no merit award system, no grading of salaries for seniority, experience or responsibility, and no demerit awards for garrulity. Minister, too, are subject to the vagaries of parliamentary fortune. They, too, can fall from grace through a mistake, a change in the election or a leader's whim. We all know that this can happen.
  Constraints on voting are normally matters for the Select Committee on Procedure. However, if the Select Committee on Members' Interests is asked to consider this issue, I would expect those constraints to come within our terms of reference, providing they are discussed in a financial context. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give some advice on that.
  We all know that the constraints under which a Minister of the Crown operates are tightly drawn. Ministers of the Crown can have no outside interests. They can draw only one salary. We all know the reasons for that. In contrast, a Back Bencher has no executive powers. In that respect, he has less power than some councillors we know. However, Members have influence—some more than others—although it is subject to all kinds of scrutiny, not least by Members themselves who have an uncanny knack from time to time of judging the merits of the influence or value of the advice of one Member against another. If it is right not to devalue that influence, it is surely common sense not to exaggerate it either. The same goes for lobbyists, who sometimes like to claim that they have more influence than they know to be the case.
  The House is full of checks and balances. It is only by recognising the need to preserve the balances without weakening the checks on abuse and failing to see the need for new ones that the Select Committee on Members' Interests can proceed and earn in its own right the confidence of the House and, I hope, of those outside.
  8·33 pm
  Mr. Roy Mason: I should like to refer to the 14 Select Committees which were established after the 1979 general election. The parliamentary Labour
  232
  party was foolish to continue manning them after the 1983 election. The Labour party has about 200 Members of Parliament. We have difficulty in manning the Standing Committees on Bills and the 14 extra Select Committees. They take about one quarter of our parliamentary strength. I suppose that, after the 1983 election, some Members of Parliament wanted the glamour of being on a Select Committee. It was an innovation, a chance to get at the Executive, to have a few swans abroad and to pick current newsy political topics for examination, followed by a burst of publicity and then, usually, a 24-hour blurb in the press.
  Select Committees meet 40 per cent. of the time the House is sitting—hence empty Chambers and snide remarks from the press, making it easier for Ministers because there is less interrogation and pressure. Above all, the Government take little notice of the reports and recommendations and, apart from the reports of the Committee of Public Accounts, fewer than 5 per cent. of the Select Committee reports since 1979 have been debated.
  I suppose that too many parliamentarians have a vested interest in Select Committees continuing, useless though they are. No doubt there are some more knowledgeable parliamentarians, especially those who take the subjects seriously, but only about 60 per cent. attend regularly. They get swamped with bureaucratic bumf; some do riot read it all; and Ministers, civil servants and industrialists know when questioned whether the Member of Parliament has done his homework.
  I have appeared before and sat on Select Committees and therefore have some knowledge of them. Now we also have a civil servant-like structure propping them up—clerks, secretaries and typists, plus an established career structure. Those people do not want Select Committees to be curtailed or abolished either. An alliance has therefore been formed.
  The 14 Select Committees represent a massive investment of money, time and travel for practically no return. Whitehall is full of dust-covered Select Committee reports which will never be heeded or debated. It is a national system—a national boring system—employing hundreds of Whitehall civil servants and House of Commons clerks, a paper-grown empire of relatively worthless activity. I believe that the Select Committees should be abolished.
  This brings me to our report and the question whether it will be heeded. We are not one of those 14 Select Committees. We are not shadowing or stalking a Department. We do not have money to travel. We are a Housebound Committee examining Members' interests and how they affect the House. We sat for more than 18 months examining witnesses, lobbyists, members of the Press Gallery and others. The Committee does not have a totally free hand, because many of the in-House activities are covered by the Services Committee and complaints about Members using House facilities must be referred to that Committee.
  We have prepared a report which has three main recommendations. According to the motion in the name of the Leader of the House—on this occasion, the mouthpiece of Government—the Government have decided to ignore the lot. Why have we been sitting for two Sessions? What a sheer waste of time. The Government are laughing their heads off, tucking Members away so they cannot cause any trouble. We are to be treated like

  233
  the rest of the Select Committees. The Leader of the House regards our report just like the vast majority of others—as dustbin material.
  We recommend that, because of nefarious, dubious, money-making activities by some journalists and research assistants using, abusing and exploiting facilities in the House through the use of their job passes, three registers should be established—for lobbyists, Gallery journalists and research assistants. If there is to be a clean-up—if that is the "in" phrase—let them register their extra press jobs, public relations activities and extra-mural commercial dealings.
  Of course I respect the integrity of the vast majority of our press men. There is no doubt that the majority stick to the Lobby and Gallery rooms and work solely for the paper accredited on their pass. I ask the House not to be diverted too much by the recent hoo-hah by a handful of Tory Members involved in the Channel tunnel contracts. They have been flushed out anyway and have suffered politically as a result. By concentrating on that aspect of our parliamentary affairs, the press is shrouding its own misdemeanours. Look at last Sunday's headlines: the Sunday Telegraph—
  "The real issues of MPs' extras";
  The Sunday Times—
  "New bid to make MPs come clean";
  and The Observer—
  "MPs must come clean on lobbyists".
  There was no mention of our report or our recommendations, and no mention of cleaning up the press.
  I shall support amendment (g), which was probably tabled because of the hoo-hah in recent days. The Tories swept into power in 1983 and brought in many young men who had never expected to be Members—executives, directors and those involved in public relations and advertising. They are not giving up their jobs, because they fear going out at the next sweep. They are not registering their remuneration. Their constituents would like to know, because it proves that they have no faith in staying here.
  I warn my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that there is a Biffen trap here in relation to trade union-sponsored MPs. The Committee may be given terms of reference to look at that issue—for example, how much a trade union pays a sponsored MP or his constituency party; whether the trade union employs his secretary and research assistant; how much of his general election expenses it pays; and how much it gives for weekend schools and conferences? Do the trade unions want all that revealed? On the basis of remuneration revealed—substantial sums may be involved—the Conservatives will have not a 140 majority on trade union legislation; they might have a 240 majority because we should be barring some of our own trade union colleagues from voting. We should beware of that.
  Lobby and Gallery journalists have facilities made available to them on the strict understanding that they are used solely for the dissemination of news to the general public through their newspapers, news agencies, radio and news magazines. It is an abuse of Gallery and lobby membership for a member to pass on material gained through being a member, using his parliamentary press card, to interests outside journalism; in other words, to other outside interests.
  234
  This House is used by some journalists—we do not know how widespread is the practice—as a base for feeding information to non-news outlets, to commercial and industrial organisations, and it can be a very lucrative business. What do the Lobby and Gallery do about it? Nothing at all. It is a big cover-up, a closed shop. They know it exists, and they probably know the culprits. They can besmirch a Member of Parliament and this House, but do not want it known that they have black sheep in their family.
  I urge the House to read the evidence given by Mr. Russell, the Deliverer of the Vote, beginning at page 74 of the report. Answering questions, he said:
  "We have a number of the press and Lobby correspondents, whom again we can identify, as using the resources of the Vote Office for their own sidelines in public relations. Those two categories are quite easily identifiable. … I am talking about professional parliamentary services given to groups".
  When asked about research assistants, he said, revealing something similar:
  "The same thing does arise in cases of members of the press, yes. There are several organisations, one particular one which we regard as extremely suspect in regard to its activities within the House because we do not believe that they do in fact perform the correct duties of Lobby correspondents—they are acting as an agency and obtaining an enormous amount of documents from us … In March of this year one particular press organisation, which has seven accredited members to it, took a total of £850 worth of documents other than Votes and Proceedings from the Vote Office—in the month of March."
  What a racket. He had to chase them week after week to force them to pay that back, because he recognised that he had to be able to defend himself should he have to appear before the Committee. There is no doubt about what is going on, and if Mr. Russell knows, the journalists know, too.
  That is why our Committee wants a register for the Lobby and Gallery. They have privileged access for commercial gain. There is no telling who outside is benefiting. They could be feeding embassies and other not so friendly organisations, disseminating special material, sometimes well ahead of the time when it would normally be available to them. Some organisation will pay handsomely for that. That is why we would like to see them registered, just like Members, and that is all.
  The research assistants and secretaries agree, especially the latter. At page 79 of the report hon. Members will see that Mrs. J. Griffin-Smith, on their behalf, stated:
  "Yes, of course we will comply; it is less than you are asking Members of Parliament to do."
  We simply ask for a register on which to declare any other remunerated occupation, yet the Leader of the House will not accept that. I should have thought that the House would regard that recommendation of ours as a prerequisite to Members being called on to declare what remuneration they receive, because those in the Gallery and Lobby who besmirch Members on that score are as guilty themselves. Their purpose in recent weeks has been to attack hon. Members, taking the spotlight away from themselves and diverting the investigative Committee reporting of their lucrative undercover operations.
  What will the Leader of the House and the Serjeant at Arms do about it? We have revealed what is happening and the evidence is there—
  "providing political advice and intelligence for reward"—
  and that was part of our terms of reference. If no notice is taken of our report, the Committee might as well pack up and the Members' Register be abolished, too. We ask of others only what we are obliged to do.
  8·46 pm
  Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey)00000: In one of the newspaper articles by which he mainly supported his family during the 1930s, Winston Churchill wrote that historians tended to overlook the not unimportant fact that politicians and their families had to eat, like everyone else.
  As we know, some of our greatest statesmen have been beset by financial difficulties. Benjamin Disraeli solved his problems by marrying a rich widow many years older than himself, and Pitt the younger by not marrying at all and dying in his forties. Such drastic solutions are unlikely to commend themselves to every hon. Member, and after careful consideration I rejected both of them myself.
  Many of us at some stage in our parliamentary careers have had to worry about our bread and butter, if only to guard against the possibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) pointed out, of losing our seats—a fate that overtook both of us at about the same time.
  There are, broadly, only three categories of hon. Member for whom the financial problem does not arise. They are those with inherited wealth or rich wives; the brilliant or lucky who quickly attain ministerial office of such a prestigious nature that it guarantees them subsequent commercial employment for life; and those who are so dedicated and ascetic that they are happily prepared to accept considerable material sacrifice for themselves and their families for the honour of serving their country and constituents here.
  One of our strengths in this House is that we are a broad church. There will always be many hon. Members who do not fall into any one of those three categories but who have a real contribution to make to our discussions.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) stated his position with his usual clarity and force, and let us be under no illusion that a great many people outside the House whose general political views might be less radical than his nevertheless sincerely hold the view that hon. Members should not have any sources of earned income other than their parliamentary salaries.
  Indeed, that is the general view held throughout the United States. When I go there, as I did last week, people expressed astonishment on hearing that I had a modest commercial career as well as being a Member of Parliament. It is something to which those of us believe that it is important that we should retain the tradition of outside interests should apply our minds. We cannot allow the argument to go by default. It is to that rather broader aspect of the problem that I wish to address my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden has already dealt extremely authoritatively with the technical aspects of the report of the Committee that he chaired.
  If we followed the policy of not allowing Members to have outside earned incomes, it would eventually produce a membership of the House which would be unrepresentative of the country. Above all, this is supposed to be and always has been a representative assembly.
  Mr. Nellist: Given that there are 5 million people without jobs, 8·5 million people in work who are below the poverty line and 13 million people dependent upon some form of supplementary benefit to eke out an existence, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the House is already a little unrepresentative when one in
  236
  seven Tory Members of Parliament has at least £100,000 cash to enable them to walk through the doors of Lloyd's, and start up as a name in a gambling syndicate?
  Sir Peter Tapsell: I have from time to time expressed my views on how we could deal with the unemployment problem. I have applied my mind to how one can acquire the money to become a country member of Lloyd's, although I am not such a member.
  If we abolished outside interests as we at present understand them, one of the rather bizarre results that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East should recognise is that we would, as in the United States, become heavily overweighted in this House by the rich. That is what has happened in the United States.
  When I was in Cleveland, Ohio, last week I was talking to the campaign manager of Senator Gary Hart, who told me that Senator Hart was one of the few top politicians in the United States who was not a rich man. It was a big problem for him. It is now virtually impossible to have a major political career in the United States unless one is rich. That is one of the results of abolishing outside interests there.
  We would not just have a House of Commons which was over-weighted by the rich; there would come to be an unduly high proportion of cranks and crooks in the House. The sad fact is, as experience in many other countries has clearly shown, that the full-time professional politician with little money of his own is peculiarly susceptible to corruption and a target for the potential corrupter. Those who advocate the banning of honest, declared—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has the reputation of being one of the more independent Members of the House. Does he agree that the possession of an external interest enhances the independence of Back Benchers? If we prohibit them, Back Benchers will be even more dependent than they currently are on the favour of the Whips' Office; that is in no one's interest.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: It has occurred to me occasionally, as I have become less poor in recent years than I was when I first entered the House, that I should not, perhaps, have been able to maintain my customary high morale for 26 years on the Back Benches if I had had nothing else to do except to look at the denizens of the Treasury Bench, intriguing though so many of them sometimes are.
  Those who advocate the banning of honest, declared outside business interests on the premise that it is the only sure way to maintain impeccable standards of behaviour among Members of Parliament have a mistaken grasp of human psychology. Honesty springs from the man and not from his method of remuneration.
  There is another important consideration. The House will be aware of the definition of an economist as someone who knows 70 different ways of making love but has never met a woman. I cannot believe that it would he in the national interest to have a House of Commons consisting entirely of Members who knew 70 different ways of raising taxes and 70 different ways of spending other people's money but who had never made or lost any money for themselves.
  There is already some danger that we are moving in that direction. When I first entered the House there were quite a few Members on both sides who had done or were doing something fairly worthwhile outside the House. There were captains of industry, trade union leaders and

  237
  distinguished barristers. There were those who had held high rank in the armed services—Jacky Smyth had won a Victoria Cross—or held high rank in the colonial service.
  In the Labour party, there was a large and greatly respected group of men who had spent many years at the pit face before coming to the House to represent mining constituencies. On the Tory side, there were the knights of the shires, the genuine article which is almost extinct in the House today. The miners and the knights usually paired with one another, drank together and shared a mutual scepticism of their Front Benches, which they never expected to join. They did not much interest themselves in arcane matters such as proper management of the economy. They provided a ballast and set a tone which is not always evident today. Above all, they were honest. They did not need to be told the difference between right and wrong by young men drawing on the full weight of their experience at polytechnics and advertising agencies.
  Of course, this place needs and always has had plenty of full-time politicians. It would not work without them. They perform an invaluable service to the country. They must be catered for by proper salaries and allowances and, I would argue, by much better pension arrangements for them and their widows. But to limit membership of the House entirely to full-time professionals would be to lower its quality, to reduce the variety of its knowledge and to weaken its collective wisdom.
  I should, perhaps, interpose here, in view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, that I do not think that I have an interest to declare tonight, because I am at least as well equipped to abandon all my outside commercial interests as the next man. I forbear to do so only out of pity for my party Whips.
  No one is more repelled by financial dishonesty or by the shady and underhand conduct of affairs than I am. I detest and despise those of that ilk in the House and the City, and always have. I remember my Presbyterian grandfather, in whose home I grew up, saying when I was not more than five years old, "Never be funny about money." That simple phrase has stuck in my mind ever since, and I have always acted on it.
  In any group of men, and perhaps even women, although it is more unusual among women, there will always be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but that is no reason to stop eating apples. There must be full and open disclosure of outside commercial interests. How they can best be declared and if necessary controlled is a matter for discussion, but declared they must be. That has long been the rule and the practice. I much prefer the traditional verbal convention to the written register, but if the register is here to stay, it must be made compulsory. Certainly, the Select Committee of Privileges should proceed sternly against any hon. Member who is found deliberately to have concealed a relevant outside interest. Yet it would be a black day for the House and the country if no hon. Member had any outside interest to declare.
  9 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The irony of the debate is that, while we are demanding an end to self-regulation in the City because of a deterioration in
  238
  standards, some hon. Members are arguing that self-regulation is sufficient in the House, where there has also been a deterioration in standards. The truth is that some hon. Members have allowed inducements to influence their judgments, and increasingly we are hiding behind the term "honourable Gentlemen" to disguise what is in reality an erosion of the standards expected of us. The public are worried and ask, "What will Parliament do about it?"
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) argued adequately and with great subtlety for the Select Committee's recommendations, particularly in respect of journalists, research assistants, and all-party groups. I wish not to rehearse those matters, but to deal with the terms of my narrow amendment, which to some extent goes to the heart of the problem. The problem is that we are simply not enforcing the register. It is not only that one hon. Member has failed to declare his interest, as the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), the Chairman of the Committee, said. During the past one and a half years there have been many occasions when hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, have refused to sign the register and declare an interest. The reason is simple. Unless the register is enforced for those who deliberately set out to avoid it, they will not comply with it. I refer specifically to Mr. Enoch Powell.
  When hon. Members are asked about the credibility and integrity of the register, they always refer to the position of Mr. Enoch Powell. The House has been unwilling to find the right hon. Gentleman in contempt of our House. In a speech in a debate on Members' interests, Mr. Powell made his position clear. Referring to the rule of the House, which the House was about to decide on, he said that it
  "is ineffective and degrading … unlawful and unconstitutional."
  I shall deal with the arguments that he deployed. Mr. Powell commenced his speech with a cautionary note expressing the view that the issue—the excesses of some hon. Members—was being generated only by the press. He argued that the rule would be ineffective, and said:
  "A sufficient number of hon. Members know very well quite enough about the background of their colleagues … This is a place where, whatever we may individually think, we walk about as naked and visible as if we were under some kind of imaginary X-rays.
  So the idea that the register will disclose astonishing facts about Members of this House of which the rest of us have been ignorant and which, either dishonourably or in a fit of amnesia, those hon. Members have not happened to mention, is really an absurdity."
  I would say that his view was an absurdity, because the register has provided an abundance of information. It has done the reverse of what Mr. Powell was suggesting.
  Mr. Powell then said that it was degrading to have a rule whereby Members are required to register. He said:
  "we degrade ourselves by implying that our honour and our traditions are not adequate to maintain proper standards in this House."
  That is equally absurd. Definitions of the code of honour are highly subjective. It might be said that when the right hon. Gentleman, accused the Prime Minister of being treacherous as he did the other week, he offended my sense of honour. It might be that my comments about the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) last Friday and his interest in GEC may have offended the code of honour or understanding of honour adopted by the Leader of the House or Conservative Members.

  239
  The point is that honour is a highly subjective assessment. What constitutes honour? Our duty is to create some form of benchmark. The code or rule sets the benchmark.
  Mr. Powell then argued that the introduction of a rule on registration would be unlawful and unconstitutional. He said:
  "it is the representation of the people for which we are seeking to legislate by a resolution of the House. We are saying that no one should seek to be a Member of Parliament, and no one is fit to sit and speak and vote as a Member of Parliament who does not comply with the condition of completing an entry in a register. That is something that the House has no power to do. We have no power to alter the law of the land by a resolution of the House."—[Official Report, 12 June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 742–25.]
  That has given birth to all the arguments about the need to legislate for the register if it is to be fully enforced.
  I am not saying that no one should seek to be a Member of Parliament unless he has complied with the register. People are free to stand and be elected under my amendment. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) is a Member of Parliament, although he has not taken the oath. He has stood, has been duly elected and is known as a Member of Parliament. He is able to carry out his functions as a Member if he so wishes, to some extent. All that we are saying under the rules of the House is that, if he wishes to participate in the Chamber, past the Bar, he must apply our rules and before taking the oath comply with the register. That is what my amendment would seek to do.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark rose—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but my hon. Friends would like to speak, and I wish to finish my speech.
  According to "Erskine May", 20th edition, page 283, a Member who has not taken the oath is nevertheless "entitled to all the other privileges of a Member, (but not his salary)."
  Therefore, he can receive his mail, correspond with Ministers, enjoy the services of the House, be provided with accommodation, use our cafeterias and bars. He can even come into the Chamber as long as he does not pass the Bar, the white line. Indeed, he can attend meetings of our Committees and speak, although he has not taken the oath. We are not preventing, by way of a rule, a Member being a Member of Parliament. We are simply preventing him from participating in the Chamber.
  There is a precedent for this. On the same page of "Erskine May" there are these precedents for hon. Members who formerly did what I have referred to. It says:
  "On 13 April 1715 it was resolved 'that Sir Joseph Jekyll was capable of being chosen of a committee of secrecy, though he had not been sworn at the Clerk's table.' On 11 May 1858, acting upon this precedent, the House added Baron Rothschild, who had then continued a Member for eleven years without having taken the oaths, to the committee appointed to draw up reasons to be offered to the Lords for disagreeing to the Lords' amendments to the Oaths Bill, at a conference of which he was appointed one of the managers. On 11 May 1880 Mr. Bright was appointed a member of the Parliamentary Oath Committee upon which he served and voted, before he had made his affirmation."
  There is adequate precedent for hon. Members to come to the House and participate fully in all aspects of our
  240
  activities. They are precluded only from engaging in debate in this Chamber. All that we are doing is denying access to a particular location.
  There is even a precedent for this. There is a precedent for exclusion areas within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. There is a precedent for conditionality to the performance of a parliamentary function. That is in the case of an opposed private Bill Committee where a declaration by the Member that he has no personal pecuniary interest must be made prior to the Member serving on that Committee. There are, therefore, other areas of this House that are forbidden those who fail to submit to the rules of the House.
  I am simply maintaining tonight that that is the precedent. To talk of legislation is to mislead the House. In the event of my amendment being carried at the end of this debate, we shall have added another rule. We shall have prevented nobody from being elected to this House. Such a person will enjoy all of our facilities, apart from one. He will not be allowed into the Chamber unless, prior to taking the oath, he has signed the register and declared his interests.
  9·12 pm
  Sir Ian Gilmour: The House has just listened to an interesting and extremely tortuous argument by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I cannot help thinking that he plays into the hands of the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Powell. He is proposing a form of disqualification that this House cannot impose. If it is important that there should be an enforceable register of Members' interests, why on earth does not the House legislate to overcome the difficulties that were put forward by Mr. Powell? If it is so important, there would be no real difficulty because, as far as I know, there is only one hon. Member who would oppose the legislation. The Government could therefore legislate, which would avoid the tortuousness of the argument of the hon. Member for Workington.
  I very much approve of the Select Committee's approach and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), but there is one point about which I venture to disagree. The suggestion that there should be a register of professional lobbyists has been dismissed. The Committee had some doubts about dismissing it, but I think that my right hon. Friend had fewer doubts about doing so. I do not believe that the definition problem is very important because those who know who are professional lobbyists are the professional lobbyists themselves. If a professional lobbyist is found to be lobbying professionally but has not registered, he will be in an even worse position than hon. Members who get into certain difficulties and he will be exposed. In any case, it is not too difficult to define a professional lobbyist, so I hope that the Committee will look again at this matter. It is a little artificial to refer to giving privileges to people. If control is ever to be exercised, there must be a register. If it is right that there should be a register for hon. Members, there should also be a register for professional lobbyists. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Committee will look again at this matter.
  I do not go quite so far as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), but I should like to deal briefly with two of the fallacies about interests and people's worries about those interests. A number of people

  241
  seem to think that if an hon. Member has an interest, that interest disturbs the general judicial judgment which all hon. Members bring to bear on all matters. If one does not have an interest, people tend to think that we consider the matter and immerse ourselves in the subject and become very well informed and so produce our judicial judgment unswayed by anything.
  All hon. Members know that we do not do that and there has not been a debate in that sense in the House this century. An interest is not a piece of mud thrown into an otherwise clear, limpid pool; it is a piece of mud thrown into a lot of other mud.
  Hon. Members have many different interests. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are very intent on pleasing the Patronage Secretary. That is a reasonable thing to do as he is a very good man and a very good man to please. But such an interest is likely to sway an hon. Member's judgment, as with a number of other matters. For example, other hon. Members may be swayed by a desire for publicity.
  It is a fallacy to say that if an hon. Member has a pecuniary interest in a matter his judgment will be far worse than that of another hon. Member. If there were such people—and there may be one or two in the House —it is not my view that they would be better than an hon. Member who has no interest at all, as such a Member may well be a crank or a fanatic. I would prefer hon. Members to have interests rather than to be cranks or fanatics.
  There are some hon. Members who are completely dominated by ideology, and I am not being unfair if I cite the example of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I believe that most hon. Members would agree that the hon. Gentleman is a useful Member of the House. However, most hon. Members would agree that if the House were composed entirely of hon. Members like the hon. Gentleman there would be too many of his kind.
  Mr. Nellist: Unlike the Tory Members who are too busy with directorships and consultancies to play a full role in the House, I bring the experience of spending two years six months out of three years on the dole before I came to the House. The House would be a lot better if there were far fewer business men, consultants, bankers and members of Lloyd's and more people who have had direct experience of the Tory Government's mass unemployment policies and who have lived in some of the housing in which the Government have condemned people to live.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree that the experience of the hon. Member on the dole is highly relevant. That is not something one would choose to have experience of, but I respect that experience. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the Labour party has enough difficulty choosing its own members without him trying to choose members for the Conservative party.
  The majority of the Labour party has always been very sound on the interests point. That is why they have the block vote. As Sidney Webb said, they needed many trade union people with interests to control the madmen in the constituency Labour parties. It has been a tradition of the Labour party to understand the value of interest.
  A great deal of nonsense has been written in the press about the Channel tunnel. Nobody thinks that the Channel tunnel question will be decided by the House. It will be
  242
  decided by the two Governments involved and all hon. Members will dutifully vote for it and a little lobbying here or there will make no difference to the outcome. The question of the Channel tunnel has been greatly exaggerated.
  It is important that there should be disclosure and I have made one or two suggestions to increase that disclosure, but the press should calm down, and hon. Members should also remain calm.
  9·19 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It was a great pleasure to listen to the elegant speech of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). I part company with him on his central point—the question of interest—because although his points were fairly made, we are here talking about pecuniary interest.
  This was the first Select Committee on which I have served, and it was a pleasure to do so under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). The report now before us touches on a narrower aspect than the debate in which we are now engaged. It touches on the specific aspect of lobbying, and it has come up with a sensible set of recommendations that were fairly outlined by the hon. Member for Wealden.
  The report is a sensible and commendable first step in dealing with a developing problem. Many will say that it does not go far enough, and many would wish to have seen temporary as well as permanent research assistants brought within the register proposed by the Select Committee. Many others might feel that the amount that Members of Parliament receive for their lobbying activities should be listed. But hon. Members who have sat on Select Committees will know that these matters require delicate balance in order to receive the support of the whole Committee.
  Some may say that the report does not go far enough, whereas others may feel that it goes too far. But, as the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) effectively said, many members of the press believe that it goes too far in its recommendations relating to them, judging by the intemperate and wholly inaccurate comments that have been made. This report should be seen as a first step to be built on later, no doubt in the light of the comments made in this debate.
  I totally support the view that the declaration of financial interests should be made obligatory. That declaration is in danger of being reduced to the level of a farce if it is not made obligatory by some means or other. I listened with care to the interesting, though slightly Byzantine, speech of the hon. Member for Workington, (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and although I would have preferred the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] That amendment has not been selected, and having listened to the interesting arguments of the hon. Member for Workington, I think that his proposal is better. I am glad that it has been selected, and I shall support it.
  Another amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends requires that we should declare all sources over and above parliamentary salaries, including the amounts received. The Select Committee considered whether that would infringe the privacy of Members of Parliament or their clients, but in my view when a person joins this House he is involved in the business of public

  243
  affairs and must therefore relinquish some of that privacy. It is right and proper that such a person and others with whom he is in contact should be prepared to forgo some of the privacy so that the affairs with which we are dealing can be seen to be more open.
  Privacy often leads to secrecy, and secrecy is the blanket behind which corruption can take place. I do not say that it does. I therefore believe that there is a need to declare all sources over and above parliamentary salaries. Personally, I would go even further. There is only one loyalty that Members of this House have, and that loyalty is derived from the vote cast in the ballot box. It is that which makes their loyalty signally and exclusively to the British people.
  Mr. George Foulkes: The British School of Motoring.
  Mr. Ashdown: In the interests of brevity—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Ashdown.
  Mr. Ashdown: I will have to answer that challenge. We hear some curious sophistries from the Labour party about how union funds which are passed not into its hands—not into individual hands or members' hands—but to constituencies in no way need declaration and that they do not intend to corrupt a Member of Parliament's judgment and need not be declared. What a curious piece of sophistry. The British School of Motoring fund was a contribution not to a Member—[Interruption]— of Parliament or to his constituency but to a party.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is so much noise from below the Gangway that I cannot hear myself.
  Mr. Ashdown: I merely draw attention to the fact that, when the amendment upon which this farrago was based—relating to driving instruction—came before the House of Lords it received Liberal and SDP support and Labour party support. This is a matter upon which, I am delighted to note, Labour Weekly recently commented—perhaps more honestly than Labour Members of Parliament. Labour Weekly said:
  "We apologise unreservedly to BSM and its Chairman … and we are happy to take this opportunity to put the record straight."
  It is a great pity that Labour Weekly seems to have more honesty in this matter than many Labour Members of Parliament.
  If I may now return to the substance—
  Mr. Terry Lewis rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he would mention that slightly contentious matter. Could he now be heard in silence?
  Mr. Ashdown: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I try to make some progress.
  I believe that there is one primary loyalty, which is exercised exclusively and which derives from the ballot box. Any other source of paid employment must create conditions which—I do not say "necessarily result"—encourage, if not corruption certainly dilution of that primary loyalty. This is an opposite view to that taken by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham but it is an honestly held individual view.
  The hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), who is not now in his place, talked about the need to pay Members of Parliament effectively and sufficiently if they
  244
  are to answer only to that primary loyalty. In my view, it is not a question of Members' salaries, which are in themselves adequate, but allowances for secretarial and research assistants, which are not.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: What about pension?
  Mr. Ashdown: I have one salary which I receive as a Member of Parliament and I have neither pension nor any other outside remuneration. Furthermore, I wish to make it clear that I have to spend more than £6,000 of my parliamentary salary for my research assistants and the resources that I need to do my job effectively. We need —[Interruption.]
  Sir Kenneth Lewis rose—
  Mr. Ashdown: I can see the time. I have a point to make and I intend to make it. I see the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) looking at his watch. Just at the moment, I am on my feet and I intend to stay on my feet and make those points even if I have the whole House baying at me. The result is that other hon. Members who have something to say will not be able to do so. I suggest that they might learn to sit back and listen. That might be an appropriate way for them to behave in the House. They dishonour the House by such behaviour as this. I shall continue so long as I get a decent hearing.
  Paying Members of Parliament at the present level is appropriate for their needs, but we also need adequate resources to pay for the staff that we need to help us do our job effectively, and we do not have sufficient resources for that at the moment. In this regard, we have something to learn from the United States. I understand that representatives of the people there are not entitled to any other outside payment.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: They are paid enough.
  Mr. Ashdown: Precisely. They must be paid adequately for that to happen. It is true that the United States system is corrupted by the process of campaign funds. Just as they look to our system of campaign funds and wish that they had a similar one to prevent corruption, we might look to their system of paying representatives adequately so that, in service, they cannot be corrupted.
  It has been made quite clear that I am in a minority. I fully recognise that, but I take strength from the belief that what I have advanced will prove to be the prevailing view. I understand that it was Ibsen who said that in a democracy, the minority is always right. I think that my party sometimes takes comfort from that.
  The amendment is a first step. It does not end up where I should like it to but I hope that it will be accepted. The Government have lectured the country about values but the Government's values have elevated private greed to a public virtue. We have seen how those values have infected the City of London with corruption and how it has spread like a cancer into Lloyd's. Those great institutions are in danger of descending into a cesspit of sharp practice and corrupt dealing. It would be all too easy for those values, created by the atmosphere that the Government have fostered, to spread into this House. Many people outside, having seen such dramatic programmes as that which was recently shown on "Newsnight," I believe that that is in imminent danger of happening. I believe that such fears are groundless and that the House and the

  245
  Members of it are still worthy of the title "honourable." It is up to us, however, to come to terms and to be seen to come to terms with the threat that is now posed.
  The Select Committee report is a useful start in a limited area. I commend it, not as a solution but as a first step in a continuing process to put our own house in order and to ensure that our integrity and our right to represent the people of Britain is protected and unsullied.
  9·33 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will forgive me if I do not follow his tortured deliberations. I agree with him in one respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) chaired the Committee extremely agreeably and satisfactorily and all of us who served on it thank him.
  I strongly agree with the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) that the Select Committee's conclusions undoubtedly upset the press, which has tried to ridicule our proposals and divert attention from the contents of our report. It is clear from this evening's proceedings that the press has no shortage of willing helpers.
  I shall deal with three false assumptions which I believe overlie most of the public discussion on hon. Members' interests and connected matters. The assumption of several Opposition Members that money affects the behaviour of hon. Members more than any other factor is rubbish. One Opposition Member has been persistent, and properly so, in his representations to the Committee about declarations of interests, but he is not present this evening because he is facing a reselection process in his constituency. No one could pretend that the pressures that he faces from those who control his destiny bear any resemblance to the pressure brought about by moneys that hon. Members earn through activities outside the House. No one could suggest that outside earnings exert more influence over the behaviour of hon. Members than constituency Labour parties.
  Many of us understand what some hon. Members sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers went through during the miners' strike because they were unable to state publicly the views they held privately about Arthur Scargill. That pressure has not been mentioned tonight, but it is more insidious than sums of money.
  The second assumption is that hon. Members have outside interests only to pursue parliamentary campaigns. That is rubbish. Many hon. Members, whether they are business men, professional people or whatever their occupation, have given years of their lives acquiring experience which is not only of value to those they serve but which enriches the advice that they lend to the House.
  For many years, since before I came to the House, I have been involved with a hotel group. A few years ago I was offered a senior position in that company on condition that I left the service of the House. I declined. It is nonsense to perpetuate the assumption that Members of Parliament pursue outside interests only to influence other hon. Members and Ministers.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) has already touched on the third assumption. During the current discussion on the Channel fixed link, it was seen that Ministers on occasions
  246
  have to deal with decisions that could benefit commercial companies. Those occasions are extremely rare. The reality is that many lobby organisations take money from their clients under false pretences. They pretend to their clients that by hiring the services of a parliamentary consultancy the companies will gain the inside track and the ear of hon. Members and Ministers to influence decisions. Generally, that is absolute nonsense. It suits those organisations to exaggerate the influence of Back Benchers. We should have nothing to do with that.
  We should examine further some of the proposals that have been put forward tonight. I utterly reject the proposition that hon. Members should not have outside interests, for many of the reasons already put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Linsey (Sir P. Tapsell). If no outside interest were allowed, many with real ability might refuse to stand for Parliament and that could not be good for the country.
  If changes are to be made, let us not only consider the United States example. Recently a delegation from Hungary visited Britain. None of its Members of Parliament is paid and all have outside occupations. Perhaps we should consider receiving no pay, but continuing with our outside occupations to bring the experience of trade union leaders or business men to bear. However, that would probably be unacceptable.
  Perhaps a slightly odd suggestion would be that Members' pay should be related to what they were earning before coming to the House and not to a fixed sum. At least that would separate the sheep from the goats. The other alternative to outside interests is to pay Members a going rate on the basis of other legislatures. I do not want to share the United States experience, which would mean that one would have to be rich to become a Member. That would be wrong. On the whole, we have an open and honest society. Let us examine some of the propositions that have been made this evening, but let us not get carried away on a wave of hysteria which bears no relation to reality.
  9·40 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees(Morley and Leeds, South) The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) raised two issues that rang bells in my mind. First, I was reselected last Friday by a party which accepts disagreement with me and believes that that is part of political life. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Members of Parliament in Hungary. I am advised that they meet six days a year. I agree very much with the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). If we vote in favour of it this evening, the 15 Ulster Unionist Members, when they return in the new year, and among them Mr. Enoch Powell, will be hoist by the words of my hon. Friend's amendment.
  As for the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), I observe that it is not only eminent statesmen who are short of money. I have known Members of this place with private incomes who have been cranks and sometimes barmy. It is not only those with another income who are independent of political forces. It is not only country gentlemen who can look sceptically at their Front Bench.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch raised an issue briefly and then dismissed it, but I am concerned about the Channel tunnel, especially during the next five or six months when it is discussed in this place. It is an issue that will not be covered by the register. If all those concerned

  247
  registered their interest in the firms involved in the project, my concern would not be removed. The motion emphasises that it is:
  "the personal responsibility of each Member to have regard to his public position and the good name of Parliament in any work that he undertakes or any interest he acquires".
  If I have learnt anything in this place, it is that many so-called parliamentary consultants and lobbyists obtain money for doing precious little. There are so many in industry who believe that they are receiving a service of importance, and one that, in fact, cannot be delivered. However, that is their fault. It is a measure of the lack of knowledge of the way in which Government works that they are prepared to pay so-called consultants and lobbyists.
  Last week, the Secretary of State for Transport said that it had not been decided whether there would be a fixed link nor which of the four schemes was preferable. He mentioned the four valid proposals and said that they would be assessed by the Anglo-French group. He told us that after the President of France and the Prime Minister had made a decision, a White Paper would be produced. He explained that the hybrid Bill procedure would be adopted and that then the House would decide.
  Only rarely in Government, as an Army Minister or an Air Force Minister, did I ever decide anything about the provision of equipment for the armed forces. As Home Secretary, I certainly did not decide who was to build a prison. That was certainly not the position in Northern Ireland, because there one decides who will not build a prison.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The House will not have the chance of deciding between one project and another. The choice will be merely yes or no on the only choice before us. That is rather different.
  Mr. Rees: I understand that, but the House will decide and that is why we stupidly get Christmas cards from Channel tunnel promoters. I believe that two companies have done that. If I was making the decision, those are the two companies that would not get the contract because the people running them must be daft if they think that that will influence anybody in the House. That important issue will influence the south of England and ports in other parts of the country, and we shall play a part in the decision.
  I believe that no Member of Parliament should receive any payment for acting as a consultant lobbyist for any one of the four Channel tunnel schemes. It was said this evening that under the private Bill procedure one must sign a statement to the effect that there is no pecuniary advantage. There is an element of private Bill procedure in the hybrid arrangements for discussing the Bill. If that is good enough for the private Bill procedure, and the private Bill procedure is embedded in the hybrid procedure, the same thing should apply. It would be wrong for any hon. Member to receive anything for being involved in lobbying for something on which we are to take a decision.
  In addition to that, at the end of the day it is the Government's job to provide information about the four schemes. It should not come from lobbyists. If I want to interest myself in the four schemes, I do not wish to go to a lobbyist to find out about them. If I were a Minister I would obtain information from officials on which to decide about the four schemes. There would be procedures in the cinema downstairs and one would spell out the
  248
  advantages and have people in to discuss the scheme. I have raised the issue, albeit briefly, because in the past week or 10 days, having read through all the Select Committee's reports, it has struck me that a register by itself will not do. The register simply asks hon. Members to list those things in which they have an interest.
  Before the register there must have been occasions in private Bill procedures when hon. Members had an interest—for example when the railways and the canals were built in the 18th century.
  The House and the Government must do something because too many people are asking whether I saw the "Newsnight" programme the other day, showing the way in which people are obtaining money on an issue for which the House is directly responsible. That is not the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned—money for doing nothing—because industrialists and people in commerce do not know what they are doing. That is for real and we should do something about it.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: One of the current problems in the register is that it is filled in at about this time of the year. Some of the issues such as the Channel tunnel can suddenly come up halfway through the year, and they have been debated and decided by the House before the register has been completed.
  Mr. Rees: I understand that nowadays the register is filled in monthly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Weekly".] If I am to be involved in anything, I write upstairs to tell them what is happening. I do not think that there is a problem in that respect. Indeed, the film on "Newsnight" showed that one hon. Member, it having been revealed that he was receiving money, then filled in the form.
  That one issue is not covered by the register. The House will play a part by contracting in a different way. I accept that. It will be similar to local government. There are rules in local government in that respect and there should be rules about the Channel tunnel. It reflects badly on hon. Members if we do not act in time.
  9·49 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: The Select Committee was charged with examining, on behalf of the House, whether it would be possible to protect the reputation of the House and its proceedings by developing the way in which the declaration of relevant financial interests has operated since 1974.
  One thing that the Select Committee was not prepared to do and was never asked to do was to pander to idle curiosity or reverse snobbery. Its task was to look specifically at the ways in which the reputation of the House could be protected. Two potential routes could have been followed. One would have been to increase the complexity and severity of the requirements that are placed upon Members of Parliament, but it was not chosen, one reason being that the moment that one starts to pry more closely into the affairs of any Member of Parliament, the question arises as to the extent to which one should look at the interests of hon. Members' families. That raises a new series of questions about how far the House is entitled to pry into hon. Members' private affairs.
  I have a nil declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I take no pride in that, and it is no cause for pleasure. However, it is important that the register is as complete as possible, and it should be enforced. The

  249
  Committee decided that there were other people in the House in a privileged position to obtain information and access to Members of Parliament, and that those people should have drawn regularly to their attention the responsibilities that go with their privileges. That is why the Select Committee made three major recommendations, which are included in amendment (e).
  I profoundly disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he suggested that now is not the time or the tactical moment to introduce those restrictions. If we do not ensure that all those in a privileged position in the House are treated similarly, it will not give us a proper base from which the Committee can move to see whether there are further loopholes or areas in which it is necessary to tighten up the present restrictions.
  Therefore, I trust that hon. Members, having entrusted to the Select Committee the task of making recommendations, will now recognise that the Committee has deliberated carefully and has put forward modest but sensible and positive proposals. Right hon. and hon. Members should consider most seriously whether they should reveal that they have a basic confidence in the Committee, and should support the recommendations in the amendment.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Biffen: It is no disrespect—
  Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order or a complaint?
  Mr. Nellist: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that in a brief debate you have difficulties in calling hon. Members, but when the House selects 12 or 13 hon. Members to form a Select Committee, draw up a report and bring it back to the House, is it in order that six out of the nine Back-Bench Members who were called were members of that Committee and that those who might wish to criticise the report did not get a chance to speak? Why should we send those hon. Members away to the Committee when they are the only ones called to talk about the report when they come back?
  Mr. Speaker: The Chair seeks to achieve a balance in all such matters. I took into account the fact that the hon. Gentleman rose to intervene on numerous occasions. That was one of the reasons why he was not called tonight.
  Mr. Biffen: I feel fraternal sympathy towards the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) as a member of the endangered species. His departure would be much regretted. By making interventions, he demonstrated that there are more effective ways to speak even than making speeches.
  My anxiety is that I have but a few moments to answer the debate. I have deliberately restricted myself to so disciplined a time because I felt that the best service that I could pay would be to give rise to the widest possible debate from the Back Benches and for the Front Benches to be suitably disciplined. Therefore, I want to construct my remarks around the four amendments called for possible Division.
  The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] A warm toast to absent friends. Were he here he might have convinced me otherwise, but in his
  250
  absence I have to say that he is inviting the House to make its own judgment about the desirability of the registration of the amounts of financial interest without having the benefit of the study, judgment and reflection of the Select Committee. I advise the House to reject that approach and to take a much more measured policy in those matters.
  The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was spoken to with great skill. It was of necessity complex. One hon. Member below the Gangway referred to it as Byzantine. I would not go that far, but it is a complex argument to deal with a novel situation which is suggesting that a resolution of the House might have the effect of preventing a Member from taking his seat until the register had been signed. This is a complex constitutional issue, touching upon the rights of taking one's seat. After all, the oath is taken under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, so this would be prescribing something which did not have constitutional enactment. Therefore, it is only proper that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) has said that he would be prepared for the Select Committee to consider the matter further. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment and we could go forward on that basis.
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asked about a Member who does not sign the register. The position is set out fairly in the 1974–25 report. It is clear that the House could determine what action it took subsequently, but it is a question of measuring the sanction against that rare quality common sense, and there the matter must and will remain until we resolve otherwise.
  I said clearly that I wished to reject the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden but I am not a Stalinist in my role as Leader of the House and I found that there was not a single friend for it; thus I had that unique minority situation of Ibsen, so we understand from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Therefore, although I said that my opposition was based purely on timing and tactics, I realise that the mood of the House is for the acceptance of the amendment and I am content that that should be the decision, swayed also as I was by the powerful advocacy of the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). Doubtless, as hundreds of research assistants file a nil return in the coming months, they will reflect that I am following the Mason line.
  Amendment (g) in the name of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West seeks to establish two things—the primacy in the use of the Select Committee as our guide in these matters and the need not to rush precipitately into anything until and unless it has been properly and in measured form considered by that Select Committee. Going on from that principle, he has established three areas where he thinks matters need to be reconsidered. It is not that the reconsideration is in any sense novel. I am sure that he will be the first to agree that these issues have been examined by the Select Committee in the past, but after a passage of 10 years or so it is perfectly legitimate that the House should think that the matter might be further considered. In particular, there has been some public comment, and we are properly sensitive to that.
  I say "properly sensitive", because we are not here to pry into each other's codes of conduct, although that is obviously a pleasing and enjoyable part of the Tuesday and Thursday knockabout We are all here as collective

  251
  guardians of the reputation of the House of Commons, of understanding how it works, of knowing that often the most effective methods of control operate by other than mere mechanical or legalistic fashions. Therefore, we want to test what we understand to be outside interest with our own knowledge of our own selves and our own faith in our own procedures. One way in which we can do that is the proper use of the Select Committee. On that basis, I commend the right hon. Gentleman's amendment and my substantive motion.
  Amendment (b) proposed, in line 2, leave out from 'Parliament' to end and add
  'but believes that their recommendations will be meaningless unless Right honourable and honourable Members declare all sources of money received over and above their Parliamentary salaries, including the clients of any Parliamentary consultancies held, and the amounts of money received from each source.'.—[Mr. Alton.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had a serious and earnest debate, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has responded magnificently to the mood of the House. We are now being asked to vote on a proposal by right hon. and hon. Members, not one of whom had the courtesy to address the House and only one of whom has been present for only part of the time. I think that the behaviour of the leaders of the SDP and the Liberal party is an abuse of the House and a gross dereliction of good manners.
  Mr. Speaker: I selected the amendment, which was properly moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
  Mr. Michael Stern: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, when you selected the amendment you were not to know that the leader of the SDP would show such utter contempt for this House, not only by not bothering to be here to move his amendment, but by not even bothering to appear in the debate at all. Do you have no power to reconsider your selection in order to demonstrate that hon. Members must show more respect both for this House and for your authority?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must know that it is perfectly in order for an hon. Member whose name stands on the Order Paper in support of an amendment to move that amendment.
  The House having divided: Ayes 63, Noes 213.

  Division No. 30]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Barron, Kevin

  Freud, Clement

  Beith, A. J.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Home Robertson, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Howells, Geraint

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Dixon, Donald

  Livsey, Richard

  Dubs, Alfred

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eadie, Alex

  Madden, Max

  Eastham, Ken

  Maxton, John

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  252

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Nellist, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, William

  Strang, Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Parry, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Patchett, Terry

  Wainwright, R.

  Pendry, Tom

  Wallace, James

  Pike, Peter

  Wareing, Robert

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Wilson, Gordon

  Prescott, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooker, J. W.

  Mr. David Alton and

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. John Cartwright.

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Hawksley, Warren

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Hayes, J.

  Amess, David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Ancram, Michael

  Haynes, Frank

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Hayward, Robert

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

  Heddle, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Henderson, Barry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hickmet, Richard

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hicks, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hirst, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Bright, Graham

  Holt, Richard

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Howard, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Butcher, John

  Jackson, Robert

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

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Cash, William

  Jessel, Toby

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Cockeram, Eric

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Cope, John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Crouch, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lamond, James

  Durant, Tony

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Lester, Jim

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lightbown, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Fox, Marcus

  Lord, Michael

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Luce, Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  Galley, Roy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maclean, David John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Gow, Ian

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Madel, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Major, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Malone, Gerald

  Grist, Ian

  Marlow, Antony

  Ground, Patrick

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Mather, Carol

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mellor, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Merchant, Piers

  Harris, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Harvey, Robert

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  253

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Steen, Anthony

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stern, Michael

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Newton, Tony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Normanton, Tom

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Norris, Steven

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Osborn, Sir John

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pollock, Alexander

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Porter, Barry

  Tracey, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trippier, David

  Powley, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Viggers, Peter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Waddington, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Walden, George

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Ward, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Watson, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wheeler, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Whitfield, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Shersby, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speed, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Spencer, Derek

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  Stanley, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the motion relating to Register of Members' Interests.
  Amendment (d) proposed, in line 2, after 'Parliament', insert
  'orders that in future no Member after his election shall take his seat unless he has first made a declaration to the Registrar;'.—[Mr. Campbell-Savours.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 174.

  Division No. 31]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cormack, Patrick

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dixon, Donald

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

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dormand, Jack

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dubs, Alfred

  Caborn, Richard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Eadie, Alex

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Eastham, Ken

  Cartwright, John

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Flannery, Martin

  254

  Forman, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Forth, Eric

  Nellist, David

  Foster, Derek

  O'Brien, William

  Foulkes, George

  Parry, Robert

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Patchett, Terry

  Freud, Clement

  Pendry, Tom

  Gale, Roger

  Pike, Peter

  George, Bruce

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Prescott, John

  Golding, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hardy, Peter

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Harris, David

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Robertson, George

  Hayes, J.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Haynes, Frank

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Hicks, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hind, Kenneth

  Shersby, Michael

  Hirst, Michael

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Howells, Geraint

  Snape, Peter

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Speed, Keith

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Spencer, Derek

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Squire, Robin

  John, Brynmor

  Stern, Michael

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Stott, Roger

  Knowles, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Straw, Jack

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Tinn, James

  Livsey, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wainwright, R.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wallace, James

  McGuire, Michael

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Wareing, Robert

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Watts, John

  McWilliam, John

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Madden, Max

  Wilson, Gordon

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Maxton, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Mr. Nigel Spearing and

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Mrs. Ann Clwyd.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Ancram, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

  Fox, Marcus

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Freeman, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bright, Graham

  Gorst, John

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Gow, Ian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Gregory, Conal

  Budgen, Nick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Butcher, John

  Grist, Ian

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

  Ground, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cockeram, Eric

  Harvey, Robert

  Cope, John

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Crouch, David

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hawksley, Warren

  255

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

  Hay ward, Robert

  Pollock, Alexander

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Powley, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hickmet, Richard

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Holt, Richard

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Howard, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Jackson, Robert

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jessel, Toby

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Silvester, Fred

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lamond, James

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Lang, Ian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stanley, John

  Lester, Jim

  Steen, Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Lilley, Peter

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Sumberg, David

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Luce, Richard

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Maclean, David John

  Thurnham, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Tracey, Richard

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Trippier, David

  Madel, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Major, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Waddington, David

  Mates, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mather, Carol

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Walden, George

  Mellor, David

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Waller, Gary

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Ward, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Watson, John

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Wheeler, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Whitfield, John

  Newton, Tony

  Whitney, Raymond

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Wolfson, Mark

  Norris, Steven

  Wood, Timothy

  Onslow, Cranley

  Yeo, Tim

  Osborn, Sir John

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Mr. Francis Maude.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have spent the past two hours debating honour and worth, and during the course of the debate, by a sedentary intervention and from the Dispatch Box, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asked the Leader of the House whether there would be a free vote tonight. We were told by two Whips that there was to be a free vote. Tonight, the payroll voted against my amendment. That was not a free vote.
  Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of such things.
  Before calling the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) to move amendment (e), I draw the
  256
  attention of the House to the fact that the word "relevant" has been inadvertently omitted before the word "gainful" in paragraphs 2 and 3. I am permitting the amendment to be moved in the corrected form.
  Amendment (e) made, at end add
  'and further agrees with its recommendations in the interests of greater openness, namely that:

  1. those holding permanent passes as lobby journalists, as journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting be required to register not only the employment for which they had received their pass, but also any other paid occupation or employment where their privileged access to Parliament is relevant;

  2. holders of permanent passes as Members' secretaries or Members' research assistants be required to register any relevant gainful occupation which they may pursue other than that for which the pass is issued, and

  3. Commons officers of All Party and Registered Groups be required to register the names of the officers of the Group, the source and extent of any benefits financial or in kind from outside sources which they may enjoy, together with any other relevant gainful occupation of any staff which they may have. Where a public relations agency provides the assistance, the ultimate client should be named;

  and that copies of these Registers be placed in the Library for the use of Members'.—[Sir G. Johnson Smith.]
  Amendment (g) made, at end add
  "and asks that the Committee considers further measures to strengthen disclosure provisions including the possibility of identifying interests in Parliamentary Questions, whether the amount of remuneration should be declared as well as the interest, and whether there is the need to consider constraints on voting.".—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in the last Session of Parliament; welcomes the intention of the Committee stated in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Report to keep under review both Parliamentary lobbying and the appropriate scope of the declaration and registration required of Members who are so engaged; emphasises that it is the personal responsibility of each Member to have regard to his public position and the good name of Parliament in any work he undertakes or any interests he acquires; confirms that the scope of the requirement to register remunerated trades, professions or vocations includes any remunerated activity in the fields of public relations and political and parliamentary advice and consultancy; and in particular agrees with the Select Committee in its statement in paragraph 10 of its Report in regard to the registration and declaring of clients that the services which require such registration and, where appropriate, declaration: "include as well as any action connected with any proceedings in the House or its Committees, the sponsoring of functions in the Palace, making representations to Ministers, Civil Servants and other Members, accompanying delegations to Ministers and the like"; and further agrees with its recommendations in the interests of greater openness, namely that:

  1. those holding permanent passes as lobby journalists, as journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting be required to register not only the employment for which they had received their pass, but also any other paid occupation or employment where their privileged access to Parliament is relevant;

  2. holders of permanent passes as Members' secretaries or Members' research assistants be required to register any relevant gainful occupation which they may pursue other than that for which the pass is issued; and

  3. Commons officers of All Party and Registered Groups be required to register the names of the officers of the Group, the source and extent of any benefits financial or in kind from outside sources which they may enjoy, together with any other relevant gainful occupation of any staff which they may have. Where a public relations agency provides the assistance, the ultimate

  257
  client should be named;

  and that copies of these Registers be placed in the Library for the use of Members; and asks that the Committee considers further measures to strengthen disclosure provisions including the possibility of identifying interests in Parliamentary Questions, whether the amount of remuneration should be declared as well as the interest, and whether there is a need to consider constraints on voting.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates, 1985–86 (Class II, Vote 7).

  CLASS II, VOTE 7
  Resolved,
  That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Overseas Development Administration) on the official United Kingdom Aid Programme including capital subscriptions, other contributions and payments under guarantees to certain multilateral development banks and other bodies; subscriptions and grants in aid to certain international and regional organisations; bilateral capital aid and technical co-operation; refugee and other relief assistance; the cost of in-house Scientific Units; assistance, including grants in aid, to certain UK based institutions and voluntary agencies; loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation; and pensions and allowances in respect of overseas service.
  Mr. Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1985–26
  Resolved,
  That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,622,415,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 9.

  ESTIMATES 1986–27 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £43,136,812,000, be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1987, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 6, 10 and 16.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Ian Stewart and Mr. Peter Brooke.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND
  Mr. John Moore accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1986 and 1987: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

  Water Authorities (Return on Assets)
  10·29 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Authorities (Return on Assets) (No. 2) Order 1985 (S .I., 1985, No. 1805), dated 21st November 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be annulled.
  This statutory instrument is quite reprehensible. The Government have clearly exposed in it the weakness of their monetarist approach. In essence, it is a tax on water. That tax has been deplored throughout the length and breadth of the country. We might have been forgiven if we had believed last summer that a tax on water might have solved all of the Government's problems. It is ironic that a Government who are dedicated to tax reductions should tax one of the basic necessities of life.
  All hon. Members accept that the basic necessities of life—food and clothing—should not be taxed. Nevertheless, the Government have taxed heat in the form of gas and electricity. One wonders whether they have considered the taxation of air. Indeed, it might come to that eventually.
  The statutory instrument might appear to be innocuous. The figures show a rate of return that varies from 1·5 per cent. to 1·73 per cent. Many hon. Members must think that this is a purely notional rate of return. However, the key point, which was so succinctly raised when this issue was debated earlier this year, is: a return on what? Many hon. Members, including Opposition Members, believe that the assets upon which this rate of return is based are false. They are based upon an incorrect accounting procedure. Therefore, 1·5 per cent. to 1·73 per cent. is a very much larger percentage that has to be paid by local authorities to the Exchequer.
  The asset figure upon which it is based is not the historic valuation. We are referring to assets which in many cases are over 100 years old. To adopt the current cost accounting procedure as the valuation is a false and incorrect way to handle the issue. We believe that there should be a better way to work out the necessary rate of return.
  Opposition Members oppose this concept, but there is wide condemnation of the Government's approach by a very wide sphere of interest, including bodies that are normally the Government's allies. However, increasingly of late I do not believe that the Confederation of British Industry can be counted as one of the Government's closest allies, especially over investment in the infrastructure. The CBI argues, rightly, that the Government's policy will put unnecessary burdens on to the shoulders of industry. As the value of the pound falls and fluctuates, Opposition Members believe that this is not the best time to start to impose additional costs upon industry.
  Why are there dire warnings about this order? If one considers the best possible estimate of the effects of the order it is felt that there will be an increase in water charges that ranges between 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. However, most independent assessments predict that the increase will be much nearer 10 per cent. than 5 per cent. This follows a rise of 10 per cent. in the past financial year. It is the declared intention of the Government and the
  260
  water authorities that increases should not rise faster than the rate of inflation, yet here we have increases that will mean that domestic and industrial water users will be paying a tax direct to the Exchequer. That is a weak way of dealing with the accounting of the water boards. Indeed, the CBI goes as far as to say that it
  "can detract from investment in Britain".
  It is useful to see what the Government's allies say on this issue. The CBI also states:
  "Whilst … it is essential to control borrowing effectively, the Government's policy of reducing water authority borrowing to zero has the effect of imposing on today's customers the cost of funding not only the provision of existing services but also providing assets which will last far into the future. It is sound business practice to borrow for long-life capital projects and water authorities should be allowed to do this".
  That is the opinion of the Opposition. Given the outdated infrastructure in much of the water industry—in both the supply and sewerage sectors—it is ridiculous that the borrowing limit for some authorities is to be reduced to almost zero.
  The Severn-Trent authority—not exactly an affluent area—is having its borrowing powers reduced to £2·5 million, and the South-West authority to £4 million. The correspondence that I have received from that authority shows that there is a continuing problem of sewage outflow on to the beaches which the authority wants to tackle but is unable so to do. Yet the Government are reducing its ability to borrow money.
  If this trend continues the water authorities will be raising considerable amounts of surplus cash for the Exchequer while driving up charges to the users. These target rates of return are inappropriate and inapplicable.
  The Water Act required the Government to establish consultative consumer panels. How many of those panels have been consulted, and how many of them support the Government? I have received a letter from the consumer panel for the Northumbrian area, which includes the most depressed part of England, with the highest level of unemployment and industrial inaction. That panel is worried about the effects of the Government's policies, and it writes that
  "any increase in charges has severe repercussions in an already disadvantaged area such as the North East Region and, according to reports in the press, we are again faced with a similar situation this year with a threatened rise of 10 per cent. in charges for Northumbrian Water's consumers".
  That is against a background of an astronomic rise in water charges during the period of this Government's tutelage. Between 1979 and 1985—in the six years of this Government in power—the average increase has been 105 per cent. In some areas such as Northumbria it has been 137 per cent. That is inflation gone mad. It is time that the Government called off the monetarist approach and helped industries and consumers in areas that have suffered from these massive increases in water charges.
  There is a strong feeling that water authorities should not be paying this tax to the Government but that, if there is excess capital, it should be invested in infrastructure to clear up sewage around our coast, for example. We should use the capital to ensure a regular and pure water supply.
  It is astonishing that between one quarter and one third of water leaks are from mains pipes. In areas such as Liverpool, more than half of the water is lost before it reaches the consumer. That is wasteful and cannot be tolerated. There could be no more appropriate time than this to debate this order as we had the graphic example of

  261
  the burst water main in Leeds only last week, when 200,000 homes were without water and people were put to great personal inconvenience.
  What happened in Leeds could happen in any of our major industrial towns. The Government have been warned by their own advisers and supporters. If the same happens to other towns, responsibility will lie squarely with the Government. The money should not go to the Exchequer but stay with water authorities to be reinvested in the infrastructure.
  The problem with sewage is even worse. I am glad that Environment Ministers are present. What is happening to our rivers is quite scandalous. I can remember the efforts of a Conservative Government in the early 1970s to clean up our rivers. They did an extremely good job and the matter has been pursued by both parties. I am glad to say that it is now possible to catch trout and salmon right up the headstreams of the river Tyne. Since 1979, however, things have changed. In 1984, 709 km of rivers in England and Wales were declared grossly polluted. That is 16 per cent. worse than the figure for 1980. That considerable worsening applies to almost every region. No hon. Member can be proud of it.
  The north-west has a
  "widespread problem of poor water quality and low pressures."
  It has also suffered 600 major sewerage collapses each year. In Merseyside, the Secretary of State for Defence described matters as
  "an affront to the standards of a civilised society".
  No less than 29 per cent. of Yorkshire's water fails to conform to the EC standard for drinking. That is especially true in the old wool towns of Halifax and Huddersfield. I can vouch for the fact that water often runs brown there.
  The Severn-Trent area applied for derogations from EC standards. The Northumbria region is cutting the operational costs of its sewerage works. For example, in 1979, a 21·2 kg of pollution load per person was recorded. That had fallen to just over 16 kg by 1984. There were 21 km of polluted rivers in the northern region in 1979, which was a good record, but there were 36 km in 1984. What happens in these regions could apply to others.
  We feel that the Government should be taking the issue seriously. We know that they are trying to put pressure on the water authorities to meet certain operating levels. They are trying to persuade the authorities to sell off their assets, their family silver, as it was so graphically described in another place.
  I ask the Minister to give a specific answer to a question which I raised with him when environmental questions were most recently before the House. We understand that in many of the territories of the water authorities in the northern region, especially in the forest of Bowland of the North-West water authority, the moors belonging to the Northumbrian water authority and the moorland in Yorkshire and the Severn-Trent area, and the national parks, there has been de facto access for exercise on foot for generations. When the Minister orders authorities to sell off that land, will he give a guarantee to the House that he will ensure that the people from the northern industrial cities and from elsewhere will continue to have the right of access and exercise, which they have had for generations, without them having to prove 20 years' unchallenged access to retain it?
  262
  I understand that the Government's ultimate objective is to privatise the water industry. I wonder whether the Minister will confirm that. Will he bear in mind the comment of the CBI, which supports the Government's water privatisation plan? The CBI concludes that in the meantime boards of water authorities should be allowed greater freedom to manage their affairs, especially their pricing, financing and investment.
  I look forward to hearing the Minister justifying this preposterous tax to those outside, to my right hon. Friends and to 34 Conservative Members who signed early-day motion 129, which calls upon the Government not to impose a tax on water. That is a view with which we concur and I urge the Government not to press ahead with this preposterous tax.
  10·48 pm
  The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): No one inside or outside the House much likes paying bills. The payment of water bills seems to excite more controversy and upset than most other payments. That is largely because water seems to be a free item. Although it recycles itself endlessly, it costs a fair amount to purify and deliver, but the public seem to resent paying much for it. That is a feeling that runs deep. They resent even more having to pay for sewerage. Alas and alack, it is difficult and costly to deliver sometimes in some areas, and it has to be paid for. Sewage is hard to get rid of sometimes. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has rightly referred to the considerable task that faces us in the delivery of high-quality water, which is one of our aims. We aim also to get rid of lead from water by 1989 and to improve the standard of bathing water around our shores.
  The rationale for seeking to improve the return on assets earned by the water authorities which deliver the water, get rid of the sewage, protect our coasts and look after land drainage, was brilliantly, clearly and explicitly set out in the admirable speech of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), in February. I recommend his speech to anyone who is interested in this critical issue. I particularly draw the attention of the House to his use of an excellent letter by Dr. Johannes Witteween in 1976 when the International Monetary Fund was called in to the country. My hon. Friend pointed out in his speech in February two intentions that lay behind the rate of return order. They remain the same today—first, to increase the investment that water authorities can make and, secondly, to do so with less public sector borrowing. I was pleased to note that when the chairman of Thames water announced his financial results for the first half of the year up to the year ending 30 September 1985, he took credit for the improvement in his authority's financial position, which has been to a large extent the result of those policies. Mr. Watts says that between September 1984 and September 1985 the authority repaid £50 million of its outstanding loans, so that it is on track to meet all its financial targets for the current year. That is a significant statement by the chairman of Thames water.
  I want to look at the general picture, the rates of return and their relationship with investment, which was referred to by the hon. Member for South Shields. I know that that will interest many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It will be noted that the order laid on 25 November specifies rates of return which are, on average, a little lower than those predicted at the time of the speech of my hon. Friend

  263
  the Member for Eastbourne. We have found it possible to set a lower average rate of return—about 1·6 per cent. for 1986–87—and at the same time fund a higher level of investment than we thought was possible earlier in the year, without increasing the planned borrowing figure. That is a significant improvement.
  We do not just expect, we know, that next year investment in the water industry, in water supply and sewerage, will reach a record level. Never in the history of the water industry will so much money be invested as in 1986–87 —about £900 million. It will soon be £1 billion a year. We have moderated the financial target. That will have an effect on the charges that we can expect. At the same time we have made it possible significantly to increase the levels of investment in water delivery, sewerage, flood protection, land drainage, coastal protection and the improvement in water quality, which is the concern of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Environment, Countryside and Local Government.
  It is significant to realise that the increases in capital investment in the infrastructure of the water industry are part and parcel of an across-the-board increase in investment in infrastructure announced in the autumn statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There will be more money for housing, roads, hospital construction and renovation and also more money for water investment and sewerage investment.
  As a result of the better-than-expected picture, we are able to set a lower than expected average rate of return. Water charges are likely to increase less than we expected six or seven months ago—by about 8 per cent. Water investment will increase by rather more—about 10 per cent. That is a considerable sum.
  I have no doubt that that improvement will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by water consumers everywhere. I hope that it will be. The figures that I have given are, of course, national averages. They will vary regionally. I have good news for the hon. Member for South Shields. Northumbria Water will not find it too difficult to keep its charges this year close to the going rate of inflation. That is different from the gloomy picture that the hon. Gentleman gave us in his speech, and the predictions by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) last year, when he said that Thames Water would impose a 30 per cent. increase in charges over three years. By how much is it increasing its charges this year? By 3 per cent. That is rather a different picture.
  Even the South-West water authority, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is concerned, expects to increase its water rate by between 6 and 7 per cent. and at the same time substantially to increase the amount of investment that it hopes to make in that year to about £40 million overall. Nowhere in the country do I expect any water authority to have to raise prices by a full 10 per cent., although I expect that some will come close to it.
  Efficiency improvements are helping to limit the charges that are necessary. I pay tribute to the water authorities and their chairmen for the substantial increases in efficiency and improvements in producitivity and manpower levels that they have achieved. That is so different from what we inherited in 1979.
  Next year we shall review the water authorities' financial targets and their investment and borrowing
  264
  requirements before decisions are taken in respect of 1987–28 and subsequent years. We are also seriously considering the prospects for privatisation.
  I answer the final question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields. Privatisation would mean reviewing every aspect of water authorities' finances. I note that no fewer than 70 of my discerning right hon. and hon. Friends have subscribed to an amendment to early-day motion 176, in support of privatisation. It is interesting to learn of that support from Conservative Members. The Government will note the strength of feeling reflected in that amendment to the early-day motion.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: In the past, profits have been made from the supply of water—indeed, that still occurs in some places. Does the Minister agree that profits have never been made from the transfer and disposal of sewage? As he is now taxing sewage disposal by way of contribution to the Consolidated Fund, whereas before the Consolidated Fund assisted sewage disposal, what is the philosophical reason for getting private profits from the disposal of sewage?
  Mr. Patten: I am no philosopher, just a simple politician. [Interruption.] I welcome the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Should water privatisation go ahead, the integrated river basin management system would be vital. That system is one of this country's great achievements. It means water in and water out, water supplied, and sewage out. People who might be interested in the [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) wishes to interrupt from a sedentary position or intervene from an upright position to talk about the angling issues which I know concern him, I shall give way. In the meantime, I should like to finish my non-philosophical and entirely pragmatic response to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  Should any water authority be privatised at any stage in future, those people seeking to purchase any water authority will have to weigh the benefits of the sale of water and other services against the disbenefits of having to provide sewerage and other services. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I expect it is on the angling issue.
  Mr. John Golding: No. May I draw the Minister's attention to the look of shock and horror on the face of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Minister for Environment. Countryside and Local Government when he referred to the cleaning of rivers as one of the great achievements. It was their expressions that amused me. It would be better if the Minister spoke with a mirror on a stick so that he could see the reaction on his side of the Chamber.
  Mr. Patten: I now understand what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment meant when he said that it was an interesting experience to serve for many hours with the hon. Gentleman in Standing Committee on the British Telecommunications Bill. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way to him again during the course of my speech.
  The hon. Member for South Shields asked four questions. First, he asked about footpaths. I understand how important it is in the lives of people in an industrial or any urban centre, south or north, to get out into the

  265
  country. Fabian fell walking is also very much part of Labour party tradition and we do not want to do anything to get in the way of that. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that water authorities which dispose of their lands will dispose of them with whatever rights of access the public may already have. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. Rather than debating the issue across the Dispatch Box now, I would prefer to write him a long letter setting all this out in some detail in an attempt to satisfy him. I have given the assurance that I have given in carefully worded terms and if it is wrong there will be all hell to pay for the people who wrote it.
  Dr. David Clark: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I shall not trespass on his time. We are not only talking about footpaths but about de facto access. As he has guaranteed us that access, I know that everyone will be grateful for that gesture.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman had better listen again to these carefully composed words. Water authorities which dispose of their lands will dispose of them with whatever rights of access—"rights" is rather different from de facto access, as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless accept—the public may have.
  Secondly, let me deal with back-door taxation. There is nothing wrong at all with a rate of return of between 1 and 2 per cent. on water industry assets. Any business would expect to earn considerably more. Water authority debt is pretty formidable at the moment. It is about £4·5 billion. Interest charges take up no less than a quarter of all revenue from customers. That is a high percentage. Few businesses would be happy with that sort of interest burden. Some authorities have started to repay past debts, thereby reducing their interest rate liabilities. That strikes me as good husbandry and sound management.
  The hon. Gentleman's third question related to current cost accounting. I know that that is a somewhat controversial issue. I am no accountant by training. The pros and cons were set out in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne earlier this year in February and I can do no better than repeat what he had to say then on why we think that historic cost accounting has a couple of weaknesses.
  The first reason is that it fails to reflect the effect of inflation on the value of assets whose lives can exceed 100 years, which are still doing valuable service and which have to be replaced. Secondly, we must somehow take into account the fact that in 1973 significant numbers of assets were transferred to the new water authorities at zero value. The 18th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, published earlier this year, commented in an interesting way on the monitoring and control of water authorities and explicitly endorsed the employment of current cost accounting in setting financial targets for the industry. It is an important debate, which we shall probably never resolve. I would not claim that this or any other Government have yet found the exact fair mechanism for charging for water and all related services. We have simply tried to do the best we could within the current cost framework.
  Fourthly, I shall say a word about Leeds. There has been a great deal of concern about the loss of water supply in Leeds during the past week. We were lucky that we had the Army prepared and ready to go in to Leeds to do such
  266
  sterling service. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was in Leeds on Friday. Events there are now under control and there are no substantial problems. I commend the co-operation of all the agencies and recognise the long hours worked by the staff of the water authority, the fire service and the Army, who came in at short notice.
  The burst was unusually severe, but the hon. Gentleman should be a little more cautious before he says, "Water mains burst in Leeds equals the proving of the case that there is under-investment in the water industry." That is simply not the case. The chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, who is holding a full inquiry into the matter, said that the cause of the burst may have been earth movements construction work or all sorts of other possibilities. It is wrong to pick an example of one major burst and suggest that that proves that there is not sufficient investment.
  I do not want to indulge in across-the-Dispatch-Box discussions about records—indeed, that would be fruitless now that we have been in government for six and a half years. We take pride in what we have done. During those six and a half years, we have increased investment in the water industry by 30 per cent. in real terms, taking into account inflation, which compares favourably with the 50 per cent. cut imposed by the last Labour Government. By all means help the debate about infrastructure, but be a little cautious before taking on the Government on their record. We have increased investment while the last Labour Government cut investment.
  The order is a further step in the progress of our policy of strengthening the water authorities so that they can discharge their responsibilities to the public effectively and cheaply. The industry is no longer a poor relation of local government, and everyone recognises that. Its reorganisation in 1974 on the basis of river basins has provided the right technical framework. With our encouragement, it now has sound finance and competent, commercially orientated management. I hope to see the day when this evolution can take a step forward and the authorities will have the benefit of being set free to serve the public as independent viable businesses in their own right.
  11·8 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister should make inquiries about what people think of the charges being imposed upon water consumers because of the taxes that the Government are imposing upon water authorities. The wrath expressed last year demonstrated the general feeling about that, which has been demonstrated again this year.
  We must remember that a number of people on fixed incomes and pensions will suffer the most from the 10 per cent. increase in charges that faces 4·5 million people in Yorkshire. Those in the lower income group and with lower rateable value properties will, because of standing charges, face an increase in excess of 10 per cent. The Minister should have regard to this imposition on water authorities.
  The debate was initiated because of the impact of the Government's financial policy on water charges this year. The Minister has confirmed that current charges will range from between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent., but in many cases the charge could be more. In addition to the

  267
  pensioners and those on fixed incomes, the working poor, who have to rely on Government incentives to take low-paid jobs, will suffer the greatest hardship. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that the increase in water charges, which is greater than the increase in inflation, will not be welcomed by consumers. It will not be welcome in any budget, especially that of industry.
  In Yorkshire, the food processing, chemical, textile, paper and brewing industries will be hit especially hard. The fact that the increase in water charges will be higher than the increase in inflation does nothing to sustain the shrine at which the Government worship. The increase of 10 per cent.—more, in some cases—will hit industries in Yorkshire in particular and throughout Britain in general.
  The CBI, which usually rallies behind the Government, has said that the high water charges, in addition to the charges for other services, such as gas and electricity, will have adverse effects on international competitiveness and might detract from investment in Britain. I hope that the Government will have regard to such statements. I believe that it is generally accepted by hon. Members and those outside that the Government are proposing a tax on water and sewerage. If we are to be honest with the consumers, we should make that point abundantly clear. The Government are taxing by the back door. Industry will have to pay the greatest amount of tax. The Government's policy of reducing water authorities' borrowing to zero will impose on consumers the cost not only of funding existing services but of providing assets that will last far into the future. The CBI has said that it is sound business practice to borrow for long-life capital projects and that water authorities should be allowed to do so. The Minister has said that any sound business organisation would take certain action in certain circumstances. He should note that that is the advice that business people give to the Government. Industrialists say that it is sound policy to borrow for long-term projects.
  We still have private water companies. What would be said if they wished to impose a 10 to 12 per cent. increase? Would they be accused of acting illegally? Here we have public water authorities imposing extra charges on consumers. There could be said to be double standards, with one set for customers of private water authorities, and another for customers of public water authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that two authorities would this year have their borrowing reduced to zero. He referred to the Severn-Trent and the South-West authorities. It seems that the Southern authority will not be permitted to borrow at all, while the Thames authority will be required to raise £85 million more than it requires to cover all its outgoings, including its capital investment programme.
  I have with me the report of the consumer consultative committee for the Thames water authority—the report related to the corporate plan for 1984—in which the committee came out firmly in support of that authority's policy and against the Government's policy of imposing financial targets at a level leading to the premature repayment of debt. One member of the consultative committee argued that investment was more important than the early repayment of debt. While, on the one hand, the Minister holds up Government policy as an example
  268
  of the way in which water authorities should operate, on the other, the body representing water consumers in the Thames area is against Government policy.
  It is right to ask what support the Government have received for their policy from consumer consultative committees. I have checked with the four consumer bodies in Yorkshire, especially about the Government's pricing policy for water authorities, and it is clear that the consumers have no support for the Government.
  I recently asked the Minister to explain the procedure if consumers made representations through a local consultative committee—remembering that no consumer can now attend water authority meetings—to the local water authority and the matter could not be resolved. Replying, the Minister told me that in the event of a stalemate, the complainant would have the right to complain to the local ombudsman.
  In asking that question, I was not concerned with maladministration but with the whole issue of pricing and consumer complaints. After all, a consumer would not need to go through the consultative committee procedure to approach the local ombudsman. I take it from the Minister's reply, therefore, that, as constituted, consultative committees have no real responsibilities. They exist in name only. They have no power or authority. I hope that something will be done to ensure that consumers are properly represented. If the consultative committees are not operating successfully water authority meetings should be open to allow the public to attend and see what is taking place.
  It is claimed that the water authorities should be allowed greater freedom to manage their affairs, in particular, with regard to their pricing, financing and investment policies. That was one of the principles and intentions of the Water Act, 1983. I hope that the Minister will accept that water authorities should have greater freedom.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that there was wide interest in and objection to the Government's water pricing policy. That is reflected by the number of organisations and individuals who oppose the extra taxes being imposed upon water authorities.
  The Minister referred to the incident in Leeds. I represent part of Leeds and that incident plainly aroused a great deal of interest. The Minister said that Mr. Jones, the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, has instigated an internal inquiry. Should there not be a public inquiry into such an occurrence? My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that there is a danger that the Leeds incident is the first of a number that could occur because of the age of the assets and the way that water authorities have to make do with them.
  The chairman of the Yorkshire water authority has more than once asked that the authority be allowed to borrow more money to solve the problems that are developing with water and sewage pipes. What would happen if a major sewage pipe fractured? The position would he much more serious and the problem would be much worse than what happened in Leeds. That is why something must be done to improve capital expenditure on such major assets.
  I hope that the Minister will take note of the problems that exist. It is no use burying our heads in the political sand and saying that the problems do not exist. They do. I hope that the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority will allow every word of the inquiry's findings to be made public. If not, I shall be asking for a public inquiry.

  269
  Reference has also been made to the amount of water going to waste. In some places, 25 to 30 per cent. of the water pumped at source goes to waste before it reaches the consumer. That is because many of the pipes are like sieves. They want replacing. Water authorities are asking to be allowed to replace them by borrowing money or financing the repairs from capital.
  I make the point which I have made more than once—I also made it in the Public Accounts Committee—that domestic consumers pay twice for waste water. We could save 25 per cent. of the cost of energy used to pump and raise water from the ground or reservoirs if we could arrest the waste of water. I hope that the Minister will take that important point on board.
  Finally, water authorities have said that they oppose privatisation [HON. MEMBERS: "Which authorities?"] Yorkshire water authority and others, and consumer organisations are on record as saying that they oppose privatisation. If the Minister has not seen the records, they can be provided. At this time last year only Thames water authority said that privatisation should be considered, while the rest suggested that it would not be in the best interests of the industry. If the Minister is not aware of that, he should take on board some of the reports of consumer consultative bodies in the various water authority areas. Some water authority members are speaking plainly against privatisation.
  The Minister did not refer to the glaring question of meters. In view of the report, I would have expected—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member is going a little wide of the order. He should stick to the return on the assets of the industry.
  Mr. O'Brien: This is important to the return on the assets because, if meters are installed, they must be financed. The report suggests that there should be experimental areas, which, if the report is implemented, must be financed. Therefore, it is important that the Minister makes a statement tonight on that subject. Any decision about the financial provisions of water authorities will influence that. As no statement was made, I doubt the validity of the report that the press suggest is now available. For that reason that subject is relevant to our debate and I appeal to the Minister to comment on it. Millions of people, some of whom are in favour and some of whom are against metering, will be affected.
  I remind that Minister that 4·5 million people in Yorkshire will follow tonight's discussion. Last year they faced up to a 15 per cent. increase in water charges, and it will be the same again this year. That is far above the rate of inflation. If increases are caused by inflation, the level of water charge increases throughout the country should be at the inflation rate.
  11·28 pm
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Some hon. Members will remember that this is not the first time that I have disagreed with my Front Bench on water charges. I have listened with interest to the Opposition Front Bench, and it would be complete hypocrisy if the Opposition did not carry their prayer to a Division tonight, which I presume they will do.
  We are faced with increases in charges in excess of inflation. The inflation rate is about 5·5 per cent.
  270
  Moreover, there is no rebate on the charges for people with small incomes, as there was prior to 1973. This is a form of taxation which is imposed behind closed doors by the water authorities, and the Government are imposing a rate of return which no business, however businesslike, would conceive of practising on the basis of a real valuation of its so-called assets. Mile after mile of rotten pipes leak like a sieve and stain the water so that people cannot even wash clothes in it. The book value that such nonsense has is then expected to give a return that may look deceptively modest when we see the figures in the order.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has not given any reason for the disparities in the rates of return that he wants the House to pray against, such as the South-West water authority, together with Northumberland, at 1·73, compared with 1·5 in the north-west, when much of the provision that the south-west has to make is for the rest of the country coming on holiday in a dry season, in terms of water collection. That is why there was a rate equalisation system for water charges from the previous Administration across the country.
  We now have water authorities alternatively exhorted to behave as if they are businesses and then forbidden to do so. No business would use current earnings for a capital investment programme of the kind necessary to replace the rotten water distribution system. [Interruption.] If there is zero borrowing, one does it either out of current earnings or not at all—unless my hon. Friend is suggesting that it should not be done at all.
  Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not say a word.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Unless he is suggesting that, that is what one would have to do.
  Mr. Holt: I said nothing.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend was speaking from a sedentary position, even if he did not realise it.
  Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it wrong that any hon. Member should attack another hon. Member for speaking when he has not said a word.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I withdraw what I said, although I did not name my hon. Friend. Another of my hon. Friends spoke. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) chooses to wear the cap, he is entitled to.
  No business operating as a business would replace long-life capital assets of this kind on zero borrowing. The Government Front Bench should make up its mind whether it wishes the water authorities to behave as a business would behave or not.
  It is not just the provision of water or the clearing away of sewage, not just the checking of the coast line and flood prevention on water courses that are involved. Other facilities provided by the water authorities are outside their statutory duty but within their statutory competence. Those are not business decisions but fairly political decisions, but the public are not admitted to the meetings at which they are taken. If my hon. Friend the Minister feels that I might have taken that view rather earlier. I can point out that I voted for an amendment when the Bill was going through the House to the effect that the public should be present.
  The order will raise personal costs and industrial costs by more than they need to be raised. The water-consuming

  271
  industries, which are often found in peripheral areas, often have major cost drawbacks anyway, because they are by definition at a considerable distance from their market. Therefore, they have high transport costs. If I may have the ear of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction—
  Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend has it.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: —I shall draw to his attention the fact that the paper industry is in fierce competition with both European Community countries and those countries that were members of the European Free Trade Association where there are still cross-trade barrier permissions that put our industry at a severe disadvantage. The Government are powerless to remedy that. However, having ensured that, compared with our continental competitors some of the energy price disparities have been reduced so that in many cases energy costs are now comparable, the Government must not bump up water charges, which would mean that those industries that need to use a lot of water, or that need to make use of a lot water and then return it to their productive processes, are rendered uncompetitive yet again.
  For those reasons, as well as many others that hon. Members may wish to deploy in the short time remaining for this debate, I shall vote for the prayer.
  11·36 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Tonight's events show that we have not quite done away with the controversy in February when the matter was last before the House. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) who is, as it were, the shadow behind tonight's proceedings was then exposed to what can only be described as an attack from all sides. He would probably have been exposed to even greater attack had the matter not been delayed for some months while palliative measures were discussed. The underlying reasons for that attack remain. Although matters have moved on a little, valid objections remain and I want to allude briefly to them.
  I share many of the views of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). We are dealing with a form of taxation that has been arrived at in secret by authorities appointed by the Minister. For obvious historical reasons, people find this particularly objectionable. This has happened at a time when we need greater investment in the water industry because its assets are coming increasingly quickly to the end of their useful life. In many cases they are now between 60 and 100 years old, and increasingly they are leaking. The industry says that it wants to put the matter right and to do a good job. It has never acceded to the Government's view that it is appropriate that the Government should impose an additional return on assets requirement.
  The fundamental objection is that the money that is to be raised from the consumer, which is always raised with some reluctance, should be translated directly into the Treasury coffers to deal with the general economic policy of the Government instead of being applied to the needs of the water industry, which are as great as those of any other part of the infrastructure.
  The Minister did not deal with the fact that lying behind all this is the spectre of privatisation. It is well known that the Government are contemplating privatisation, and it is
  272
  apparent from the Minister's reply that the Government are seeking to increase the appeal of the industry so that it will be easier to hive it off. However, they are reducing the industry's ability to carry out urgent tasks. May I remind the Minister of what I understand the Water Authorities Association would most like in terms of a water policy, because some of the things that the Minister hinted at do not quite deliver the goods. First, they want a system of proper objectives to motivate not only chairmen but also all officers and employees, so that—
  Mr. John Patten: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make another related point so that he can deal with them together. The authorities need objectives that reveal themselves in terms of financial planning.
  This order is the second of a series, of which last year's was the breakthrough first order. None the less, from what the Minister has said, there is no clear planning basis for the figures for the coming years. The industry wants to simplify its system and to reduce Government interference and imposition so that it can reduce its charges. It also wants a series of targets for more than one year ahead, yet the Minister avoided doing just that. The industry would like targets for three years, but the Minister has not done that because before they are up he anticipates privatisation—there is no secret about that and his gestures suggest it—even though that is not the necessary conclusion of the road down which we are going. In any event, it is not the only helpful way of assisting the industry.
  Irrespective of the Government's privatisation plans, with which I disagree, it would be helpful if the targets were spelled out now so that the water industry can see what is required of it and plan accordingly.
  The industry would also like to have flexibility in raising finance. It does not want to charge the substantial increases that it is now being forced to charge. In some areas that was 10 per cent. last year and 10 per cent. this year. That is way above the rate of inflation, and it imposes an additional, severe burden with no rebate for those who are often the least able to pay. Although this is not an enormous part of a person's budget, it is a substantial and relevant part. It is taxation above the rate of inflation with no parallel increase in the service provided.
  I understand that the chairman of the Thames water authority is an advocate and supporter of privatisation, but last year he complained vociferously about the Government's imposition of these targets. He would argue that his authority's operating costs are largely fixed, that it has a large revenue base, that it has done a lot to reduce costs and that it is not necessary for the Government to require this return on assets.
  There are also problems for the Welsh water authority because of the difficulty of marrying the effect of the return on assets order with the attempts to make the system more just as between the high-rated and low-rated authorities. That results in a double imposition.
  Equally, other regions are concerned that present policy means that they are not able to obtain proper expenditure, given this imposed additional taxation. The North-West water authority is among them, and I understand that it has tried to get the rate of return reduced because it does not believe that charges—14 per cent. last year, of which 9 per cent. was due entirely to this order—should be increased by anything like that amount this year.

  273
  Given that there is such a clawback of money for the Revenue, one must ask whether the use to which it is put is justifiable. That brings me to a specific point about the North-West water authority's liability for the victims of the Abbeystead pumping station disaster. The Minister will be aware that the explosion last May resulted in substantial loss of life, including three employees of the water authority and injury to many others. Every hope has been given that some of the water authority's assets would be used to alleviate the pain and suffering of the victims. So far, however, they have had only £20,000—£10,000 from the North-West water authority almost immediately and another £10,000 last week.
  The Department of Employment Minister who went up to St. Michael's in Lancashire on behalf of the Government said that it seemed that the water authority was liable, as it would have been liable even if a tramp had been blown up while asleep on the authority's premises. Parliamentary answers to questions properly asked by Lancashire Members of Parliament have made it clear that Government funds were available. I do not mind who pays, but there have been precedents such as Bradford and Brussels, which could come to the rescue now to meet the hardship of those who are suffering.
  The latest estimate is that the first realistic date at which to expect court money is next year. The Minister replied to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party recently, so he will know that the families of the victims are impatient. The water authority has substantial assets and it has been said that the funds for compensation exist, but no money is forthcoming. It is just this type of failure to use assets at times of need which justifies complaint. I hope that the Minister will direct attention to that case to achieve a satisfactory result before the end of the court case.
  I hope also that the needs of the old and others who find water charges an imposition will be met. That can be achieved only by the Government reducing their charges. The water industry should be allowed to assess what it needs and impose charges accordingly. The Government should not tighten the screw by adding to charges which consumers cannot control because those who make the decisions are not accountable to them.
  11·47 pm
  Mr. Roger Freeman: I accept the order because, in present circumstances, it presents an acceptable balance between raising finance for capital investment from the revenue cash flow of the industry, which is what a return on assets is all about, and the external financing limits in aggregate, which is what the public expenditure White Paper is all about.
  There are three developments, however, which should give the House cause for some optimism, that we will not have to consider such orders in the future. The three developments are directly relevant to the order because it is about financing capital investment. The first is the new development in Anglian Water—my region—of the introduction of private capital at Flag Fen. Introducing private capital through franchising or joint venture obviates the need for capital investment financed through the PSBR. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pursue that important development in conjunction with the Treasury.
  274
  The second development applies in the medium term. I am a strong supporter of privatisation and hope that it comes in region by region. There are many private water authorities and it is perfectly reasonable to privatise each of the major water authorities one by one and for them to operate under regulation just as many hundreds already do.
  The third development is metering. We have recently received the report of the Watts committee. Compulsory residential metering would reduce demand by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent. and therefore obviate capital investment in some authority areas. That means that an authority may not need to raise finance for investment in new reservoirs. The second important value of residential metering is that it is important as a matter of equity.
  In the long run, we are all in favour of permitting the industry to make its own decisions about the necessary levels of capital investment. In this instance I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Only the industry can make these decisions, and it can do so only if it can participate in the full play of market forces.
  11·50 pm
  Mr. John Golding: For many of us, water is not for industrial purposes. For Conservative Members, water is often not for drinking. For my right hon. and hon. Friends, water is not for bathing; they prefer asses' milk generally. As everyone knows, water has only one real use, and that is to provide fishing.
  I shall address myself to angling. The angler is in danger of greater exploitation by water authorities because of the imposition of a rate of return. I have been told that I must not abuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) within the terms of the order, so instead I shall speak in support of the Midland Federation of Fly Fishers, which is concerned about the privatisation of reservoirs.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Environment is not present, because he would suffer from shock on hearing what I am about to say. I do not oppose all privatisation of reservoirs. In fact, I am the president of the Tittesworthe fishing club, which has experienced privatisation. The club has taken over the reservoir and the fishing has improved since it was under the control of the Severn-Trent authority. Likewise, in the area of the Anglian authority, Ravensthorpe fishery was privatised last year. It has come under good ownership and control and it is extremely successful.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain how he relates these matters to the substance of the order, which is return on assets.
  Mr. Golding: That is obvious, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If money is lost running a fishery, the rate of return is affected. If money is made running a fishery, that obviously relates to the rate of return. My remarks are addressed to whether profit is made or not, and I believe that they are relevant.
  The Midland Federation of Fly Fishers is worried always about rates of return on capital, and it is concerned about the privatisation of Rutland, Graffham and Pitsford reservoirs. Why is that? The federation believes that privatisation of large reservoirs under the control of the Anglian authority will be harmful. The ornithological,

  275
  boating and angling interests have come together successfully and they have learnt to live together. It has been possible for anglers to enjoy fishing on the reservoirs. The federation is worried that the Anglian authority, thinking that it can maximise revenue by privatising, will privatise vast reservoirs. It claims that they will not be so successful as the small reservoirs. So vast are some of the reservoirs that it will require multi-million pound companies to take control of them. The fishermen are concerned that when that happens they will be taken over by entertainment and marina companies and that there will be all sorts of sports such as water ski-ing, which are incompatible with angling. The Midland Federation of Fly Fishers thinks, and I agree with it, that it would be dreadful for national angling institutions such as Rutland, Graffham and to a lesser extent, Pitsford, to be privatised in that way.
  As the international fly fishing competition is to be held at Rutland and Graffham in 1987, it would be a disaster if people came from abroad to fish and saw water skiers on the water in the interest of maximising revenue. That brings me within the order once again.
  The anglers are most upset about what the Anglian water authority seems to he doing to pave the way. The authority increased the cost for two anglers to go fishing at Rutland to £33. The anglers found that expensive but were prepared to accept it because there are very good power boats at Rutland. The Anglian water authority then extended those charges under financial pressure from the Government. That brings me within the order again. The authority then extended them to the other fisheries at Graffham and Pitsford. At Graffham the boats are ancient and not worth the price that was being charged.
  276
  The water authority was killing off the business. Anglers are generally very generous men and few of them are cynical, but they began to think that the authority was trying to kill off the business to have an excuse to privatise it. Those generous people, with rarely a suspicious thought in their heads, began to suspect that of the water authority.
  The anglers have other grievances. They believe that the charging of £25,000 or £30,000 overheads on the fishery accounts has been done to pave the way for the privatisation of the vast waters. I am speaking on behalf of the anglers of Anglia; we do not want that. We want national institutions to remain national. It is acceptable for the smaller waters that will he managed as fisheries to be privatised, particularly if they will have to close.
  I shall talk about the wider issue of privatisation.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: One minute to go.
  Mr. Golding: One minute is nothing when we are dealing with angling and privatisation.
  It is certain that there is tremendous opposition among anglers to the privatisation of water. That does not just apply to the ordinary common working-class fisherman. In the past few months I have been surprised at meetings of the anglers' co-operative association, the anti-pollution body and other angling organisations that there is a tremendous fear that privatisation of water will come. They think that privatisation will mean a reduced quality of angling. The Minister must not under-estimate the opposition to the privatisation of water among those who depend on water for their pleasure.
  I regret, particularly in the absence of—
  It being one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to order this day.

  Taxis (Heathrow)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
  11·59 pm
  Mr. Vivian Bendall: I declare an interest in the matter, in that I represent the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association. My interest is declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
  Not long ago we had a meeting with the Minister, for which I thank him, when we said that members of the taxi trade have been extremely concerned about the 50p tariff proposed by the British Airports Authority for the feeder park at Heathrow. I have also been in correspondence with Sir Norman Payne of the British Airports Authority to ask him to reconsider his decision about a charge for entrance to the feeder park. Unfortunately, when I wrote to him several weeks ago, he was not prepared to do so.
  I should give the House a little background to how this unfortunate situation arose. Some time ago it was realised by the airport authority that there were problems with the taxi ranks at the airport, and taxis were using airport roads and getting in the way of the normal flow of traffic. Perhaps with more forward planning, taking into account the increase of the number of passengers going through the airport, that could have been realised some years ago and adequate provision made for it. However, that was not so and adequate provision was not made.
  The airport authority rightly, to try to resolve the problem, suggested that taxis should be put through a feeder park. Some years ago, in conjunction with the licensed trade, talks took place on having a feeder park. General agreement was reached and certain aspects of it were contained in the 1983 byelaws. However, at the outset there was no mention of any charge to be made at that time or in the near future. Now drivers are being penalised by being charged 50p to enter the feeder park.
  On the average Heathrow to central London run, depending on what part of London it is, on the present tariff, the taxi driver is likely to get £17 or £18. The problem arises when a cab from the feeder park has to go on a more local call such as in Isleworth or Hounslow, which are quite close to the airport. If the fare is fairly low, 50p for entering the feeder park is a considerable sum. The taxi can come back to the front of the feeder rank after a short journey only after it has been to some specific hotels adjacent to the airport. There will be confusion in the feeder park as cab drivers who have been waiting there for a considerable time will not be too happy about other taxis coming in front of them, even if they have been on a short journey.
  The LTDA has informed me that the likely cost to the taxi trade of a feeder park charge of 50p is about £40,000 a month. There have been problems at Heathrow. There has been a boycott of the airport by a number of taxi drivers. The LTDA has supported that boycott. In such a situation, it is the public who are liable to be the losers.
  The Minister should be made aware that since the boycott began several anomalies have arisen. Mini-cabs have been exploiting the situation to great effect. Cases have been reported to the LTDA and, in turn, to me of mini-cabs which have in the last few weeks charged tourists and visitors as much as £97 to come to central London from Heathrow. In one case a trip to the Hilton
  278
  hotel cost £60. Some mini-cab drivers have suggested that if they take more than one passenger to central London the charge will be £20 for each passenger.
  The English tourist board has taken an interest in the matter and it wrote to Mr. Feigen of the LTDA on 12 December. That letter pointed out that its infrastructure committee was extremely concerned about the 50p parking charge that was to be levied at the airport. It believed and hoped that it would not result in the deterioration of the taxi service and asked for the LTDA 's advice on that. A copy of that letter was forwarded to Mr. Bell of the British Airports Authority.
  Although the trade is boycotting Heathrow, it has acted in a proper and responsible manner. In other countries when such a situation has arisen there has been, quite wrongly, the blocking of airports—a ridiculous attitude towards the problem. The LTDA wishes it to be made clear that it would have nothing to do with such action because it would have serious consequences for emergency services in the event of an unfortunate accident.
  There have been meetings today between the British Airports Authority and the members of the taxi trade interested in the problem. However, I am afraid that no agreement has been reached. The British Airports Authority's suggestion was that perhaps charges should be held until the end of January. That would only put off the situation for a few weeks. I can understand the British Airports Authority's concern with Christmas coming given the number of passengers going through Heathrow. Naturally it is concerned about the passengers and how they can disperse from the airport and get to it.
  Another suggestion is to hold charges until May and in the meantime a committee could be set up to try to find ways of passing the charges on in a combined commercial venture. I do not understand whether that involves the trade because I have not yet had an opportunity to consider the finer points.
  A member of the LTDA has asked for a judicial review, and I understand that that has been granted. I should have thought that it would have been prudent and sensible of the British Airports Authority to have held or withdrawn its charges pending the judicial review. That would stop the boycott immediately and would give time for the judicial review to be heard and for a decision to be reached.
  I understand that in future legislation the British Airports Authority is liable to be privatised. I support the Minister in that. But what is liable to happen to charges on feeder parks once privatisation takes place? Will there be any control of increases? To some degree that trade has been let down.
  Some years ago British Rail tried to introduce charges on taxi ranks outside stations. It decided that it was not practical and withdrew the proposition. Now that the BAA has introduced charges, I can envisage British Rail reconsidering its position. If it introduced charges, that would increase costs to the general public.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the tariffs charged to the public by taxi drivers. It is rather unfair that their tariffs are controlled in one area, but in another area they must face this increase. The Minister was asked to consider an increase in the tariff. I can understand his problem, because how can we separate taxis coming from Heathrow from taxis in London?

  279
  The BAA should reconsider the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will intervene and will discuss the issue with the BAA. I understand that the original direction may have come from his Department, which is interested in increasing revenue from airports. I do not understand why that increase should be to the detriment of the taxi trade.
  The taxi trade in London is an integral part of the transport system of Greater London. It is important because it is properly controlled and properly licensed and its drivers have to pass a knowledge test, unlike many parts of the private car hire system. In those circumstances, it is not fair to penalise those who are running a good service as an integral part of London's transport system. I hope that the matter will be reconsidered. I believe that it can be resolved—and, I hope, resolved before the continuing boycott at Heathrow really begins to affect the public.
  12·12 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) for raising this matter, and so giving the House the opportunity to consider the real issues that lie behind it.
  The facts of the matter may be simply stated. The British Airports Authority incurs identifiable costs of some £500,000 associated with the marshalling of taxis at Heathrow. After extensive consultation with the London taxi trade, The authority decided to recover that cost by means of a levy of 50p on each vehicle entering the taxi feeder park. That charge was introduced on 27 November, since which date the taxi trade has boycotted the feeder park. I am sure that my hon. Friend will correct me if that is not his understanding of the position.
  Before discussing the implications of this, I must state at the outset that the decision to introduce that charge was an administrative matter for the British Airports Authority acting under the Airports Authority Act 1975. It was not something for which I or my colleagues were responsible. I shall not comment on whether the authority had the vires to make that charge as I understand that this specific question is now the subject of a judicial review.
  As I see it, this matter gives rise to two relatively distinct questions. The first is whether it was right for the authority to levy this charge at all, and the second is whether such a charge should be recovered from taxi passengers in the form of a surcharge on the fare for hirings made at the airport. I see my hon. Friend indicating that I have identified the key issues.
  Taking the first question of whether a charge should be levied, I think that it is common ground that the authority has the power to provide these facilities for marshalling taxis at Heathrow. Indeed, under the 1975 Act it has a duty
  "to provide such services and facilities as are necessary or desirable at its airports".
  I think that it is also accepted that the provision of these particular facilities costs in the order of £500,000 per annum, which has to be met from one source or another. At the moment it is a charge on the general revenue that the authority receives from its activities—that is, it is primarily recovered from aircraft landing charges.
  We know that there is a cost and how it is being met. What are the effects? First, it makes flying into Heathrow a little more expensive for the airlines, but they pass that cost on to their passengers. Every passenger passing
  280
  through Heathrow is making a contribution toward meeting the cost of marshalling taxis—a taxi tax on all the users of the airport. It seems to us not wholly unreasonable that the charge should be on the taxi operators who benefit from it.
  A taxi charge on all the users might be justified on social grounds, but I do not think that my hon. Friend was claiming that the London taxi trade was a disadvantaged group in need of social support. The closest analogy that I can find is with the road haulage industry, which meets through taxes and duties the cost of the damage that its vehicles do to the roads. No one has yet claimed that we should increase excise duty on all vehicles to relieve the industry of this burden. The costs are identifiable. The road haulage industry gives rise to them, and it pays. This is the same principle that is being applied in the present case.
  Let us examine the argument that the taxi trade is providing a service to the airport authority by carrying "its" passengers and should not be charged for doing so. But the shops in the terminal buildings are also providing a service and it is not said that they should not pay for the privilege of serving this lucrative market. It could be said that that is not a fair analogy. It has been asserted that London taxis have a right to ply for hire throughout London, including Heathrow. However, the airport is on private land and bus operators, who are licensed to ply for hire anywhere in Great Britain, pay a fee towards meeting the costs that they give rise to at the airport. That is directly analogous to the position of taxi drivers.
  Of course the taxi trade does not like paying for something that it has previously had for nothing—I understand why my hon. Friend raised this matter of behalf of the taxi drivers—but I am afraid that all the logic lies in favour of putting these costs on those who benefit—the taxi drivers who choose to ply their trade at the airport.
  Mr. Bendall: Will my hon. Friend concede that shops at Heathrow do not have the prices at which they sell their goods controlled?
  Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has made an important point, to which I shall come in a moment.
  That brings me to the second strand of the argument—that, if the taxi trade is to bear this cost, it should be permitted to pass it on to passengers in the form of a surcharge on the fare. My hon. Friend claims that it is totally unreasonable that fares should be controlled and that the taxi trade should be unable to respond to an increase in costs by increasing its prices. At first sight, I was sympathetic to this argument. That was before I made further inquiries.
  Soon after we first took over this responsibility from the Home Office, my officials came to me saying that it was time to increase London taxi fares. I must admit that my first reaction was one of amazement that the prices in this industry are controlled by central Government. What was so unique about the London taxi trade that it alone in the entire economy should be controlled in this way? Why cannot each taxi driver decide on the price at which to sell his services?
  I was then presented with the following argument: first, to protect the consumer, all taxis must charge the same fare; secondly, the fare must be set by some authority; and, thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport had drawn the short straw. We have aceepted

  281
  this—so far—but I would state unequivocally that, if there were true competition between taxi drivers charging different fares, I would have no objection whatsoever to them taking this levy into account when deciding what fare to charge from Heathrow.
  That is not the present situation. As I have said, we control taxi fares to protect the consumer. Let us examine the effect that the present tariff has on services at Heathrow. Apparently, hundreds of taxi drivers are willing to queue for several hours for a hiring from the airport. Why? Not all passengers are American tourists or Arab sheikhs, from whom the driver might expect a handsome tip.
  The reason is that the fare tariff makes hirings at Heathrow particularly lucrative. That is because the meter rate is increased by 50 per cent. when the journey passes the six-mile mark. That was not an unreasonable provision for the normal taxi driver compelled, say, to take somebody to Bromley or Enfield, from where he was unlikely to get a return fare. Often it is the case that a taxi picks someone up in the middle of London or at a station, takes her or him to whatever the destination may be and there is no fare back. To compensate for that, there was put into the system this 50 per cent. increase.
  The increased earnings on the outward journey cover the cost of returning some way towards the central area, where the driver might reasonably expect to get another hire. But this same surcharge applies to hirings at Heathrow airport, most of which leave the cab in the middle of central London, where the driver can immediately be in the best possible position to pick up another hiring. I can see little justification for a tariff structure which inflates the average taxi fare from Heathrow by as much as £3.
  To be frank, all the evidence is that Heathrow is highly profitable to the taxi trade. The levy that we are now debating will make a slight impact on its profits, but, so far as I can see, there will still be plenty. I told my hon. Friend when he visited me, together with representatives of one of the London taxi associations, that if this levy gives rise in the longer term to an undersupply of taxis at Heathrow, I shall be willing to reconsider the case for a surcharge on the fare, and I stand by that undertaking.
  But tonight I go further. If, in spite of the 50p surcharge, there is still an apparent oversupply of taxis at Heathrow, there would be a strong case for a review of the tariff structure with a view to reducing the excess profitability of providing these services in the circumstances I have described. It does not benefit Heathrow or the passengers who pass through the airport for there to be hundreds of cabs stacked in a feeder park in the central area. It certainly does not improve the availability of taxis in the centre of London.
  282
  This matter demonstrates vividly the anomalies that can arise when market forces are suspended in favour of central determination. It is certainly not the wish of this Administration to be in a position of controlling London taxi fares—but while we have this responsibility it is our duty to exercise it in the best interests of the passengers. I therefore thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to an anomaly which has previously gone unnoticed in the detailed and complex exercise of determining taxi fares.
  I know that my hon. Friend, besides supporting the London taxi trade, is concerned for the welfare of taxi passengers. He will therefore be relieved to know that the dispute is not causing too much inconvenience to those who would normally have chosen to travel by taxi. While I am sure he shares my regret that there should be any inconvenience at all, the majority of such passengers have transferred to other forms of public transport.
  Heathrow has particularly good public transport links which include the underground, the airbus, run by LRT, and a minibus service called Airliner, which provides a covenient door-to-door service to and from the airport. In addition, those with heavy luggage or going to destinations that are difficult to reach may telephone for a hire car or taxi to pick them up at the airport.
  One often finds when considering a particular case that it is grounded in more general and fundamental issues. As I said in my opening remarks, this apparently detailed matter has caused us to consider two such issues—first, whether costs should be borne as a general tax or should fall on those who benefit, and secondly whether the fare tariff for London taxis should be reviewed in relation to Heathrow.
  For the reasons that I have given, our view on the first of those is that such identifiable costs should be borne by those who benefit, not by all airport users. On the second, we are not persuaded of the immediate need to pass this levy on to the passengers, but we shall review the situation with a view to securing an appropriate level of supply of taxis at Heathrow up or down depending upon how the matter develops.
  My hon. Friend expressed his anxiety and that of the trade, which he has expressed to me before, about what would happen in the event of the privatisation of Heathrow. The fair trading and competition laws would come into operation. That applies not just in the future but at present. My hon. Friend might like to consider that that might be a more effective way of taking the matter forward than the boycott which is currently losing members of the taxi trade a useful income during the pre-Christmas period.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  King's College Hospital
  King's College Hospital
  Double Taxation
  Double Taxation
  Engagements
  Engagements
ENVIRONMENT
  Water (Metering)
  Water (Metering)
  Housing Defects Act
  Housing Defects Act
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  GLC (Scientific Services)
  GLC (Scientific Services)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Wildlife Inspectorate
  Wildlife Inspectorate
  GLC Precept
  GLC Precept
WALES
  Hospitals (Children)
  Hospitals (Children)
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Latent Damages
  Latent Damages
  Land Registry
  Land Registry
SCOTLAND
  Reprocessing Plant (Dounreay)
  Reprocessing Plant (Dounreay)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  School Meals
  School Meals
TRANSPORT
  Woolwich Ferry
  Woolwich Ferry
  GLC (Flyovers and Tunnels)
  GLC (Flyovers and Tunnels)
  Dartford Tunnel
  Dartford Tunnel
  Temporary Spare Wheels
  Temporary Spare Wheels
  Traffic Lights A5120-M1
  Traffic Lights A5120-M1
  Leighton Linsdale Bypass
  Leighton Linsdale Bypass
  Accident Statistics
  Accident Statistics
  Channel Fixed Link
  Channel Fixed Link
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Freedom of Speech
  Freedom of Speech
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Teachers' Pay Dispute
  Teachers' Pay Dispute
  Students (University Placings)
  Students (University Placings)
  Class Sizes and Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Class Sizes and Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Concessionary School Transport
  Concessionary School Transport
  Open University
  Open University
  University Funding
  University Funding
  Selective and Non-Selective Systems (Comparisons)
  Selective and Non-Selective Systems (Comparisons)
  University Research Staff
  University Research Staff
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  City and Guilds Vocational Examination Schemes
  City and Guilds Vocational Examination Schemes
  Nordic Language and Culture
  Nordic Language and Culture
  Nursery Schools, Liverpool
  Nursery Schools, Liverpool
  Lunchtime Supervision (Funding)
  Lunchtime Supervision (Funding)
  Special Schools (Governing Bodies)
  Special Schools (Governing Bodies)
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  Graduates (Projections)
  Graduates (Projections)
  Student Maintenance (Deeds of Covenant)
  Student Maintenance (Deeds of Covenant)
  Nutrition Courses
  Nutrition Courses
  16 and 17-year-olds (Financial Support)
  16 and 17-year-olds (Financial Support)
  Nutrition
  Nutrition
  University Staff-Student Ratio
  University Staff-Student Ratio
  Women Students
  Women Students
  School Leavers (Statistics)
  School Leavers (Statistics)
  Pupils (Qualifications)
  Pupils (Qualifications)
  Open University Student Association
  Open University Student Association
  Universities (Funding Support)
  Universities (Funding Support)
  Parental Choice
  Parental Choice
  Teachers Appraisal (Inner City Areas)
  Teachers Appraisal (Inner City Areas)
  Business Skills and Taxation
  Business Skills and Taxation
  Pupils (Special Needs)
  Pupils (Special Needs)
  British Gas Corporation
  British Gas Corporation
ENERGY
  Fuel Supplies
  Fuel Supplies
  Gas and Electricity
  Gas and Electricity
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
EMPLOYMENT
  Temporary Employment and Training Schemes
  Temporary Employment and Training Schemes
  British Dental Association
  British Dental Association
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Castleford
  Castleford
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Tactical Options Manual
  Tactical Options Manual
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Thames Valley Police
  Thames Valley Police
  Police (Expenditure)
  Police (Expenditure)
  Police (Gas Spray Guns)
  Police (Gas Spray Guns)
  Mrs. Cherry Groce
  Mrs. Cherry Groce
  Data Protection Tribunal
  Data Protection Tribunal
  Police Computers
  Police Computers
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
  Probation Service (Clients)
  Probation Service (Clients)
  Riot Damages Act 1886
  Riot Damages Act 1886
  Sergeant Mark Parsons
  Sergeant Mark Parsons
  Mr. Floyd Jarrett
  Mr. Floyd Jarrett
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Drink-Driving
  Drink-Driving
  Foreign Visitors (Visas)
  Foreign Visitors (Visas)
  Dr. Sathananthan
  Dr. Sathananthan
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  EC Council of Ministers (Middle East)
  EC Council of Ministers (Middle East)
  Angola-United States Talks
  Angola-United States Talks
  Namibia (Political Parties)
  Namibia (Political Parties)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Western Sahara
  Western Sahara
  Morocco
  Morocco
  Simonstown Naval Base
  Simonstown Naval Base
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Children's Homes and Hostels (Inquiry)
  Children's Homes and Hostels (Inquiry)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Hamilton (Grants and Loans)
  Hamilton (Grants and Loans)
  Financial Services Bill
  Financial Services Bill
  Tied Public Houses
  Tied Public Houses
  Industrial Grants (Worsley)
  Industrial Grants (Worsley)
  Companies
  Companies
  Company Law
  Company Law
  Insolvency Act 1985
  Insolvency Act 1985
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Morocco (Phosphate)
  Morocco (Phosphate)
  Tobacco Sales
  Tobacco Sales
  Grant Aid (Worsley)
  Grant Aid (Worsley)
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Workplace Nurseries
  Workplace Nurseries
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Income Tax Reliefs
  Income Tax Reliefs
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Bingo
  Bingo
  Customs Surveillance
  Customs Surveillance
  Customs Officers
  Customs Officers
  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Revenue Allocations
  Revenue Allocations
  Dental Services
  Dental Services
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Non-psychiatric Services (Merseyside)
  Non-psychiatric Services (Merseyside)
  Anti-tuberculosis Vaccines
  Anti-tuberculosis Vaccines
  NHS (Pay)
  NHS (Pay)
  Benefit Statistics
  Benefit Statistics
  Local Offices (Interviewing Boards)
  Local Offices (Interviewing Boards)
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Form F.ID
  Form F.ID
  Leeds General Infirmary
  Leeds General Infirmary
  Private Contractors
  Private Contractors
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Primary Health Care (Expenditure)
  Primary Health Care (Expenditure)
  Middlesex Hospital
  Middlesex Hospital
  Drug Misuse
  Drug Misuse
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Trauma Research
  Trauma Research

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

Church of Scientology: Charitable Status
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Church of Scientology has been granted charitable status and, if so, on what grounds it is eligible for that grant.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I understand that the Church of Scientology has not applied for charitable status.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for according me that Answer. Is my noble friend aware of any application which has been made by the Church of Scientology?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if there is any application for charitable status, it is a matter which should be looked at extremely carefully by the Charity Commissioners. It is a matter for them and not for the Government.
Lord Denning: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this so-called church has been severely criticised by the judges, and particularly by a judge in the Family Division? Is he also aware that this and other religious cults do great harm to our society, particularly in regard to the relationships between parents and child? Is it not high time that all of them were deprived of charitable status? How is the Attorney-General's action proceeding in regard to that very point in connection with one of these cults?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am certainly aware of the feeling which the noble and learned Lord expresses; but, as I said to my noble friend Lord Sandys, the achievement of charitable status is a matter for the Charity Commissioners and not for the Government. So far as proscribing this organisation is concerned, that again is difficult because such organisations would have to be unlawful and yet there is nothing unlawful about them. On the matter of the appeal to which the noble and learned Lord referred, I understand that a date has been set for the hearing in February 1986.
Lord Denning: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is not merely the parties concerned or the Charity Commissioners? The Attorney-General and the Government are concerned in this matter and they ought to take it up.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, I understand the concern which the noble and learned Lord expresses. However, there is nothing essentially illegal involved, and what one must do in this case is limited by, what can be achieved without impinging in any way on what is not illegal.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while the noble Lord the Minister is obviously right in saying that it is a matter for the Charity Commissioners, are not the Charity Commissioners in the difficulty that they have to interpret our law of charity? Is not one of the arms of the law of charity the advancement of religion; and is not the word "religion" unfortunately not very well defined in our law as yet and ought not some thought, at all events, to be given to this matter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot say what definition of "religion" is in fact within our law, but what I can say to the noble Lord is that the most effective way of discouraging any socially undesirable activity is to give it the greatest possible public exposure. The more the dangers are revealed, the less potent or attractive will they be.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I apologise for coming back to the noble Lord the Minister. We are not on the subject of desirability or undesirability. As I understand it, we are on the subject of status as a charity. Is not the difficulty here the looseness of the definition to which I referred?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his point of view, but when it comes to the actual question of the Charity Commissioners dealing with this matter the status of any body which seeks charitable status is a matter for the commissioners and not for the Government. The Government appoint the Charity Commissioners. Nevertheless, I shall consider the noble Lord's point.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend know of any other religion which seeks to break up the unity of the family? Is that not why this particular cult is so desperately dangerous, together with the Moonies and others in a similar vein?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are a number of other new "religions"; some are registered and some are not. I should not like to be drawn on whether any of them try to break up the family.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, was not the so-called theology of this organisation the product of a sci-fi writer, one Ron L. Hubbard? Is that perhaps the measure of its value as a piece of theology to justify the description of its being a church?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as Mr. Hubbard is concerned, the noble and learned Lord is quite right in saying that he appears to have been involved at the beginning of this. He applied for entry clearance to visit this country in 1982. He declined to attend an interview with a British representative to establish whether he was genuinely seeking entry as a visitor and his application was later refused. That decision was upheld by the independent appellate authorities and

655
an application for judicial review was refused in July this year. I explained earlier to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the appeal date has been set for February 1986.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, with regard to the information that the noble Lord has given us about the Charity Commissioners, is it not a little astonishing that there should be an independent body authorised to give away Her Majesty's taxes?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should have thought there was great advantage in a body which is set to do that being independent in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, are the Government prepared to allow a debate to take place in this House to ascertain the views of members of all parties on whether this organisation, which purports to have some theological basis, is entitled to charitable status or any other kind of status?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that the usual channels will take note of the noble Lord's view.

Special Constables: Recruitment
2.44 p.m.
Lord Henley: 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 steps they are taking to achieve a marked increase in the number of special constables.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, responsibility for recruiting special constables rests with the chief officer of each police force. We encourage chief officers to recruit as many as they can usefully train and deploy.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and fully accept that this is a matter for chief constables. But does he agree that there has been a very marked decline in the number of special constables from about 45,000 in 1964 to about 16,000 now? Does he also agree that they are a highly cost-effective force in that they are not paid at all, and that more could be done to encourage their recruitment?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly encouraging that the number of specials has increased in each of the last three years after the 30 years of steady decline to which my noble friend refers. Also we must bear in mind that the significant proportion of wastage in recent years is due to the introduction in nearly all forces of a retirement age of 55 and the removal of inactive members. I certainly agree that they are cost-effective and we are doing what we can to encourage chief officers—this is carried out through Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary during their annual visits to forces—to increase recruitment where they possibly can.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister feel that in many ways it might be helpful if
656
chief constables were encouraged to apply to minority ethnic leaders in their districts, to see whether or not a greater number of special constables could come from ethnic minorities?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly true, in general, that the special constabulary is more successful than the regular forces in attracting recruits from the ethnic minority communities. As I think the noble Lord will expect, this is helpful in establishing a link between these communities and the police which can aid each of them in understanding the other.

Manufacturing Industry: Employment
2.46 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their forecasts agree with that of the CBI that 120,000 jobs will be lost in manufacturing industry in 1986 and 1987.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, following the long-established practice of previous governments, we do not make forecasts of future employment levels. In this country, as in other countries, the long-term trend is a shift in employment from manufacturing towards services. Since 1983 we have seen a much slower rate of decline in manufacturing employment; and the CBI forecast expects that to continue.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am perfectly well aware of what the CBI forecast states. I am more interested to know what the Government are going to do about it. Does the CBI report, which was drawn from the data provided by 1,600 companies in this country and which forecasts that 120,000 jobs will be lost in manufacturing in the next two years, square with the analysis and forecast which one hopes Her Majesty's Government are now executing, in view of the future of the economy of this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to regard this slower decline in the numbers employed in manufacturing industry as some terrible evil. But I think, on the contrary, it is the result of much greater productivity in British industry and the much greater modernisation of plants which has taken place in recent years. What is more important is the overall level of employment and, as the noble Lord will be aware, there has been a significant increase in the number of jobs in recent years.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware, as regards the CBI forecast, that, whether the decline in the rate of job losses is faster or slower, the fact is that a very high proportion are losses in the older manufacturing areas of the North of England? Are the steps being taken to try to halt this decline constantly under review, especially in view of the fact that the take-up in the service industries is often comparatively slow?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the solution lies in the direction of greater growth of investment in new manufacturing industries and the CBI forecast anticipates 8 per cent. growth in that area next year.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as the Government are paying attention to the CBI, will they now pay attention to the very strong demand to reduce the rate of interest which is one of the worst factors in holding back manufacturing employment and exports?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the rate of interest which companies have to pay, like some of the other factors which respond to international rather than national pressures, is not wholly within the gift of the Government. In any event, we think that a sharp decline in the rate of interest would result in a rapid increase in inflation.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, further to the question of the right reverend Prelate, has the noble Lord seen or heard of a report prepared and published recently by officials of Newcastle District Council which points out that Tyneside is now one of the poorest regions in the whole of Europe because of the progressive rundown in manufacturing industry over the past five years? When will the Government recognise the effect of their policies on the older industrial areas of Britain and do something about it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have not seen the report to which the noble Lord refers, but nobody denies that there has been a sharp decline in industrial activity in certain parts of the country in recent times. The future lies, as I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, just now, in new investment in new industries. That is the way for the future.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider the possibility, since there will be an increase in unemployment as a result of this run-down, of allowing people on unemployment benefit to earn a higher amount than is at present allowed while still keeping their benefit, bearing in mind particularly the Shops Bill which is going through the House at present?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, that departs a little from the Question on the Order Paper, but I think the noble Baroness will be aware of the Government's views.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the estimates of the CBI to which he does not seem to want to refer are, if anything, conservative? The fact is that the job loss since 1979 is far greater than the estimates which the CBI suggests for the job loss next year. If the noble Lord will not give figures on the CBI's estimates, will he tell us in what direction the Government expect to see an increase in employment next year? Is it to be in the service industries? And if it is to be in services, which part of services? Can the noble Lord give any figures at all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord may recall an Answer which I gave three or four weeks
658
ago—I am not certain whether the noble Lord was in his place on that occasion—when I reported that there had been a considerable increase in the numbers in employment in the United Kingdom in recent months. We expect that increase to continue. The difficulty has been that the total number of persons seeking work has also increased, and thus it has not been possible to make the inroads into the numbers of unemployed that we would have wished. But we believe that the trends which I reported to your Lordships recently will continue and that the position will improve steadily from now on.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that the gap in employment that has been created by the decline in manufacturing industry can be made up from the service industries, in view of the vulnerability of those industries to developments in new technology?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have just said, the total number of people in employment in the United Kingdom has increased in recent months and years despite the decline in some of the older manufacturing industries to which the noble Baroness has referred. The future will lie in an increase in the numbers employed in new manufacturing activities and also in an increase in those employed in service industries.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is not only the older manufacturing industries which have lost out but also some of the more modern industries, such as motor-cycle manufacturing and computer printer manufacture, where the United Kingdom is now totally absent from the world market? Is not the only way we shall ever get back into these fields to encourage overseas manufacturers, particularly the Japanese, to come to the United Kingdom and set up within the EC?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is certainly one of the possibilities and one of the things that we are encouraging. Industries such as the older motor-cycle manufacturing industry were at their most successful at a time when competition was a good deal less than it is now in terms of modern manufacturing standards. Firms that were successful in earlier years were not able to keep up with modern trends.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the same CBI report the forecast is that next year the growth in exports will be only about 4½ per cent. whereas the growth in imports will increase to more than 6½ per cent.? Does this not indicate clearly that next year, according to these forecasts, there will be an even greater loss of employment and an increase in unemployment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not accept that there will be an increase in unemployment next year. As I have already said, we anticipate that the increase in the numbers in employment in the United Kingdom will continue, and if the total number of those people seeking work does not increase at the rate that it has recently then the numbers of unemployed will likewise decline.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that it would be easy to attract new investment for new industries in the West Midlands without substantial help being given to assist in cleaning up the environment in that area?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is another question, if the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for saying so. Nonetheless, the Government do provide substantial support for industry in all areas of the country, but especially in some of the more difficult areas. For example, exports support, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred just now, is currently running at something of the order of £1 billion annually. Research and development innovation, which again has a benefit to some of the newer industries, is costing some £430 million; and, speaking from my own point of view as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, we are spending something like £8 billion annually with British industry.

SDI Programme: International Consideration
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the case for creating a specialist international commission to examine the SDI programme proposed by the USA, and the apprehensions expressed by the USSR and others.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): No, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Baroness on maintaining that old Conservative philosophy of not having the courage to look at the new moon out of respect for the old? Is she aware that the Question simply asks if the case could be considered? If that cannot be considered, there is nothing in the whole field of trying to obtain peace, let alone goodwill, in the whole edifice of the structures of Western and Eastern politics. What is sincerely being asked is for our country to give a lead in trying to find the ways and means—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, on reflection, that all that is being asked is to try to establish some ways and means of taking the bitterness out of the cold war so that perhaps Great Britain can provide an initiative in finding a way to peace?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I did study the original Question of the noble Lord, and I gave him an answer to it. There already exist ample opportunities for international consideration of the implications of SDI.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Anglo-American agreement gives the United Kingdom any direction
660
over the SDI programme? Can she further say whether the Government believe that this was an appropriate subject to be placed on the agenda in the Geneva talks?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the SDI was discussed at the summit meeting, when President Reagan made it clear that he was going to continue with the research but within the restrictive interpretation of the ABM Treaty. On the other question which the noble Lord asked, about our contribution to this research, we believe that there are opportunities for this if British companies want to take them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Baroness, that is not an answer to my question. I was referring to the Anglo-American agreement on SDI, and I asked the noble Baroness whether in fact we have any control over the direction of the matter or whether we are merely hoping to get a little work out of it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, there have already been questions on the detail of the Anglo-American agreement. It is quite wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but the noble Lord is quite right in thinking that there is the possibility that a very substantial amount of SDI work consistent with our industrial base could come to this country.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister explain why it is that noble Lords opposite so frequently refer to the alleged dangers of the American research programme and never refer to the Soviet programme on research in space, which has been going on for even longer?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to that very important point, which was fully spelt out in a statement made by my right honourable friend Mr. Stanley on 26th November. It is clear that the activities of the United States are only prudent in the light of what is being done by the Soviet Union.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are widespread fears in many countries, not even excluding our own, about taking the arms race into space? Is she not further aware that there are apparently members of her own Government who are apprehensive about American domination in various spheres? Is there no fear felt in the Government about this issue, in which the whole direction of policy, as my noble friend has suggested, will lie in American hands rather than be influenced by those on this side of the Atlantic?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is fully aware that the basis of the United Kingdom's policy remains the four points that were agreed at Camp David one year ago.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, would it not be possible to send copies of Questions of this kind to foreign Governments? I take it for granted that, whatever happens in the argument about peace and war, we shall not drop bombs on ourselves. Therefore, many of

661
the Questions that are being asked of this Government should in fact be asked of foreign Governments. Can we send such Questions on to them?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do I understand the noble Baroness aright: that the agreement signed with great flourish simply means that United Kingdom companies may tender for work and that the United States will then examine those tenders? Or does it mean that the United States has an obligation to accept such tenders? In other words, does the agreement mean anything at all other than that United Kingdom companies may tender?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the question asked by the noble Lord is wide of that on the Order Paper. If he cares to put it down as a separate Question, then I shall be happy to try to answer it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some of her replies appear to be at variance with Sir Geoffrey Howe's observations at the NATO Foreign Secretaries' conference, where he and Herr Genscher expressed grave apprehensions? Herr Genscher said that the policy of SDI would give super protection to the super powers but would leave the lesser powers in danger. He was supported in that view by Britain's Foreign Secretary, who asserted that we have to find ways and means of talking with the USSR in order to secure peace. Is the noble Baroness aware that the Canadians, too—and the Canadians are important—feel that the present attitude will endanger NORAD?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that there is no difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and myself in respect of any of the answers I have given this afternoon. The fact is that the Americans are committed to the common defence both of North America and of Western Europe, which is secured under the NATO treaty, and that there are close and frequent alliance consultations about the implications of SDI for the defence of Europe.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on banking supervision that is being made in another place. That will be followed by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on the supplementary benefit board and lodging payments.
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 7.30 p.m. At approximately 8.30 p.m. the Committee stage of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill will be resumed. It is intended that the Committee stage of that Bill will be completed tonight. During the break the Social Security (Contributions Re-Rating) Order 1985 will be taken.

Australia Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to give effect to a request by the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (Incitement to Hatred) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to replace Article 13 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. I beg to move that this Bill he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Dunleath.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Education (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The legislation relating to agricultural holdings—that is to say, the legislation regulating tenancies of agricultural land—was last consolidated in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. That 1948 Act has since been supplemented by Part H of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and extensively amended, principally by the Agriculture Act 1958, Part I of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984.
This Bill consolidates the Act of 1948, Part II of the Act of 1976, the Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit) Act 1977, the Act of 1984, and certain related enactments. If your Lordships agree to give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way. In those circumstances, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that this Bill will pass through both Houses very quickly, During the passage of the 1984 Act a number of us complained of the complexity of its provisions as affecting farmers, landowners and those advising them. It is a relief to know that there is now to be some consolidation with the previous legislation. May we give it a speedy blessing.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. We in the Government always pay great attention to his suggestions and his criticisms of our legislation.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
3.8 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Viscount Davidson.)
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I do not suppose that it very often happens that when a harbour order confirmation Bill is passed through this House the feudal superior, who is ex officio one of the harbour commissioners, is a Member of this House and is present, as I am today. My ancestor, Alexander Fraser, constructed the first harbour at Faithlie before 1546, and in 1592 his grandson, who had improved it further, obtained a charter from King James VI creating Faithlie a Burgh of Regality with a free port to be known in all time coming as the Burgh and Port de Fraser. In the 19th century the harbour was much improved and enlarged, and improvements continued into this century until Fraserburgh became the biggest herring port in the country.
Recently the growth of oil-related and commercial traffic has made further improvements necessary. This Bill, and the two following, will enable them to be made. We have waited a long time for them—too long—so all the more warmly do I now welcome them, on behalf of the Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners and the people of Fraserburgh, for the employment they will bring and the hope of renewed prosperity. I suppose it would be too much to hope that one day Fraserburgh might regain its status as a free port.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for so warmly welcoming this Bill. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to make any promises about Fraserburgh becoming a free port, but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we have been very privileged to be present in this Chamber this afternoon for what is clearly an historic occasion.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Fraserburgh Harbour (No. 2) Order Confirmation Bill
3.12 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Fraserburgh Harbour (No. 3)Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Consent by local authorities
.—(1) A local authority may by order (in this section referred to as a "consent order") made in accordance with the provisions of this section provide that shops situated in their area or in such part thereof as is specified in the order may for the purposes of such transactions as may be specified in the order be open for the serving of customers on Sunday, and in such cases and to such extent as is specified in the order Part IV of the Shops Act 1950 shall not apply.
(2) A consent order may contain such incidental, supplemental or consequential provisions as may appear to the local authority necessary or proper.
(3) A local authority shall not make a consent order except—

(a) on the request of the owner of the shop, and

(b) after consultation with any body appearing to them to represent relevant interests.

(4) In this section, "relevant interests" means the interests of employers in the locality, the interests of employees in the locality and the interests of the shopping public in the locality.")
The noble Lord said: We return to the general area of an amendment that was moved so ably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, yesterday. In essence this amendment is seeking to provide local authorities with some discretion over what happens in their areas in respect of the pattern of trade and the pattern of trading hours. It is as simple as that.
The amendment seeks to provide local councils and local councillors with an opportunity of exercising some discretion over the very broad and very vital area that is contained in the Bill. I draw the attention of the Committee to what I think are significant words in the amendment. In the amendment I refer to,
"shops situated in their area or in such part thereof".
I talk in terms of the consent order containing,
"incidental, supplemental or consequential provisions".
I use the words "necessary or proper". I refer to,
"consultation with any body appearing to them to represent relevant interests".
I then make an attempt to define the "relevant interests". I specify three which are not exclusive. The three are the employers, employees, and the shopping public.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of providing national legislation in the pursuance of which powers can be exercised by local councils. I have served on a local council for a number of years—as have many Members on both sides of your Lordships' Committee—and I believe that local councillors are better able than others to act in what they believe are the best interests of their constituents and their localities. That is not an offensive phrase. I happen to

665
believe that local councillors are more in touch with local people that are Members of your Lordships' Committee. I happen to believe that they are more sensitive to the needs, to the aggravations, to the fears and the worries of local people than, collectively, are Members of your Lordships' Committee. I happen to believe that they are more in touch with, and more anxious to be in touch with, and to reflect the view of local people than are Members of your Lordships' Committee.
I am inviting your Lordships to take a very cool and, I hope, sympathetic look at what it is I am asking the Committee to do. Before noble Lords, who I will listen to with respect, tell me that it is a nonsense or that it is not possible to delegate to local councils some powers—and particularly powers in respect of shops legislation—I simply remind the Committee that the present Act which governs these matters already provides for some aspects of control to be in the hands of local councils.
In Section 1 there is the question of the weekly half day. This decision is delegated by national legislation to the local legislators. They exercise that power after they have consulted the local traders. In Sections 8 and 9 of the present Act there is scope for making closing orders to impose tighter restrictions on closing hours during weekdays. No noble Lord opposite has argued against the principle that local councils and councillors are able to make judgments in that respect. I invite the Committee to say that they are able to make judgments in respect of consent orders, which I shall talk about in a moment.
Incidentally, I mentioned the present provisions in respect of closing hours during the week. Those who follow these matters closely—and it is a considerable number of your Lordships, and I am grateful for that—will know that the present law lays down that the closing time for shops should be 8 o'clock with one late night of 9 o'clock. I heard only today of a very large retailer with an impeccable reputation which employs in a very large store nearly 400 workers, part-time and full-time. For the last period of this year, instead of closing at eight it has closed at nine, and instead of one late night of 9 o'clock it has had two late nights of 10 o'clock.
Here we have a situation where the local authority has the opportunity of exercising its powers and in this instance it has decided not to do so. Your Lordships may very well say, "Why in fact should we impose on local authorities the undoubted responsibility of making decisions in this way?" So far as I am concerned, in the hope of not being tedious, I shall repeat that I am opposed to the general relaxation of Sunday trading. I am envisaging a situation in which the law concerning Sunday remains broadly as it is and that the prohibitions which exist at the moment will continue.
Nevertheless, we are told by a number of your Lordshps that there is a demand—not in general but in certain areas—for change. We shall be told, for instance, that there are areas, perhaps such as the one near where I live in Enfield which is called Crews Hill, where there are many garden centres and that people say that there is a demand for garden centres to open on Sunday. This amendment will enable a local
666
authority, in pursuance of its sensitivity to local needs, to issue a consent order which will enable such an area to open. For instance, it may be Crews Hill, or, moving out of my area into Cheshunt, an area where there is a very large hypermarket—and a hypermarket in contrast to a supermarket or superstore is a massive trading operation. Where people say that there is a demand that shops should be allowed to open the local authority ought to have a right to authorise it.
I introduced the question of other people's experience. The noble Lord the Minister, who has been very fair in these debates, will not hesitate to introduce the Scottish experience whenever it suits his case—and that will be more than once. I want to reintroduce the foreign experience. In other countries they are able to manage their law in such a way that they have general proscriptions, but they nevertheless allow local councils to exercise discretion. In many states in America there are different sets of regulations. In many counties within states there are variations on those regulations. Looking at the experience of Switzerland, we see that there is national labour legislation but nevertheless cantons are able to operate independently. In France no one may employ a person in a shop on a Sunday unless an order authorising it has been issued by the mayor, after consultation with employees and employers.
It may very well be that noble Lords will say, "We don't want to know that. It has nothing to do with us." In that case they will never plead in aid experience other than from the apparently unique situation here. I am arguing the case that local councils both in other countries and in this country are perfectly competent under the existing legislation to act with discretion. One of the arguments that is put forward by the deregulators is: let the people choose, have no regulations, let the people decide. The opponents of that point of view argue that if that happens, it will be the market forces which will prevail—the big boys, whether they are do-it-yourself stores, garden centres or hypermarkets. This amendment ensures that the big forces, which I believe will be unleashed if this Bill, unamended, becomes law, can certainly be held in check.
If we want a shopping scene which reflects the desires of the local people—and, after all, that has been said more than once—then local people are better able to decide what they want than is your Lordships' House. There are some interesting situations. In my own locality, between Enfield and Edmonton, there is an area called Ponders End. Ponders End is part of the A.1000 which runs from the city out through Edmonton into Hertfordshire. Ponders End is literally an area on a highway between Edmonton and Enfield. Some months ago enormous local interest was aroused when a large do-it-yourself firm, whose name I shall not mention, made an application to transform part of the site into a mammoth do-it-yourself store. There were fierce arguments, which were of a kind which your Lordships will fully understand if not accept in total, that there would be increased traffic and disruption and that the locality would be transformed. Nevertheless, the local planning authority gave permission for a change of use and for this operation. It also wrote into the permission, in order to protect the amenities of the locality, that no trading was to

667
take place on a Sunday. The store advertised that it was going to operate from 9 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock every night six days a week, but on the very first day of trading up went a poster declaring, "We open on Sunday from 9 until 6".
That was a gratuitous infringement, not merely of the Shops Act but also of the planning permission. The local authority concerned will be considering at a meeting this week what action to take against that infringement of the planning permission, and I hope the matter will be dealt with severely.
But at the same time in this small community of Ponders End a very large trader with an impeccable reputation is also seeking to establish a large superstore. It will be a big store with 30,000 square feet of selling space. There has been agitation not that it should be refused, but that it should be given planning permission.
Those are the kinds of decisions which already under present legislation a local authority is apparently considered competent to make; and quite rightly so. Local councillors, who want to be re-elected and who want to be popular and seen to be listening to the people in whose midst they live, are perfectly competent to deal with situations of that kind. I envisage that the consent order procedure, the drafting of which may not be technically correct—and I shall take advice on that—provides the Minister with his best opportunity so far in the first five amendments. There are many more amendments to come, as the noble Lord the Minister is well aware, but it may be that he wants to break his duck on this particular amendment. (I should be so lucky, so early in the day and so early in the Bill.) If the Minister genuinely wants to listen to the voices which have come to him—I shall not say that he has ignored them, because I would not be so disrespectful, but perhaps he has not yet taken their views on board—and if he wishes to reply to them, he ought to say to the Committee that this is the kind of amendment which he is prepared to look at. This kind of amendment will provide local people with an opportunity of exercising their power and their authority.
The Minister may very well say that he will trust to the good sense and good will of the large retailers. He may trot forward the arguments as to how many traders will open and how many will close. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, so rightly said last night, until there is a general relaxation no one will know who is going to open.
3.30 p.m.
I should like to tell the Committee what one of my former constitutents told me. He lives in the middle of an area which I believe will be detrimentally affected. His name is Mr. Driver, and he lives at 53 Glanville Avenue, Edmonton. He said:
"On Tuesday last I had an advertising booklet pushed through my letterbox promoting the do-it-yourself company."
I will not mention the name.
"On page 82 I was urged to write to you if I agreed to a change in the Sunday trading laws.
"Page 82 of the booklet contains five plausible reasons but I fear No. 6 has been omitted, i.e. the greed of the company to increase their profits at the expense of the English Sunday. I like Sunday as
668
it is. I do not want my Sunday put at risk or turned into just another day. I draw the line at the thought of Tesco, Sainsbury's, Marks and Spencer's, 'Woolies' and Edmonton market opening on Sundays, because sooner or later that is what will happen."
There is no point in wringing our hands after the event. I accept that noble Lords believe that there will be benefits such as increased employment, expansion for the small shopkeeper and so on. They may or may not occur, but if the change also brings about the conditions that I have mentioned, can we still say that we do not care? We may not believe that they will happen, but Mr. Driver and others do.
Before trading is allowed in the area around Edmonton Green market the local authority will have to take on board the consequences. The noble Lord the Minister more than once yesterday said that we should not pass the buck to local councils because they have a lot on their plate and we do not want to burden them further. I have served as a councillor and I am in touch with my local council. I know that this Government do not hesitate to place on their shoulders of local councils a great deal of additional legislation. Some councillors may not like to become unpopular as hard decisions and judgments will have to be made. They cannot please everyone. If permission is not granted to a shop in a small suburb, they will have to justify it. I believe that the local authority is better able than your Lordships' Committee to take that decision. I hope that the Minister can say something helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: Yesterday I withdrew my first amendment in the expectation that this amendment would be put before the Committee. I ask your Lordships to support the principle of it. In a way it has been endorsed in very many respects. The principle is this. There should not be unrestricted trading on Sundays in our towns, cities or counties. There should be some brake and restraint on it. That control should be in the hands of local authorities.
The Auld Report—and my noble friend Lord Vestey quoted this on Second Reading—at paragraph 219 said:
"In fact, shopping seems to us to be the one area where a reasonable case might be made for local discretion. Shopping is primarily a local activity, employing local people, and it would be local residents who would be disturbed by any untoward noise or traffic congestion".
My noble friend pointed out what had happened in his lovely little village of Dedham. A covered market was brought in and the traffic and the noise ruined the peace and quiet of that village. The people could not go to church as they once did and leave their cars outside. The way was blocked by cars coming to the covered market.
My noble friend Lord Graham has just told us what is happening in the north of London with a superstore. The local residents should have a great say in such matters and their say should govern the decision. The representatives on the local authorities are the best people to decide. That is the principle which underlay even the 1950 Act. Local authorities were given the duty to enforce it. Unfortunately they did not do so as they might have done; they gave way to some opinions. But they are the people to put the brake on undue Sunday trading.

669
That is what I sought to achieve in my first amendment. I hoped that it was simple. We should let the local authorities consider the applications and the objections and let them decide. As I understood many noble Lords, whether they were the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, or the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in particular, the principle was accepted. But then I was shot down by Exocets from the lawyers—from my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and others of my friends. I have often been shot down by the lawyers when I have had a good idea; and this is a good idea.
I should not go the whole way. I go along entirely with what my noble friend Lord Vestey said in his magnificent speech on Second Reading. He said that there ought to be a framework for activities in local authority areas and that they should set the framework. He said, for instance (at col. 1135):
"Seaside and holiday resorts, entertainment centres, ethnic requirement, etc., would all lead to different but acceptable patterns in various neighbourhoods …
Within a local authority area there may well be some localities trading on a Sunday and some not. There would be a conventional quiet Sunday in the majority of towns and villages, but busy shopping in entertainment centres, resorts and locations where there is a genuine need and desire".
Is that not good reasoning?
The only objection to that which I could see in the Auld Report was the difficulty of getting consistency between one area and another. Each area is quite large now. As I said yesterday, Winchester is 12 miles round. All these district councils are self-contained. They know what is best for their locality and what should be allowed.
As to the want of consistency, I have a small suggestion. If there is any difference in the discretion exercised by local authorities, let there be introduced, as in the planning Acts, an appeal to the Secretary of State. There could be an inquiry; but an appeal would preserve consistency, if that is necessary, throughout the country and the principle would be intact. Let the local authority decide what is best for its own locality.
I would mention one other point. One objection is that a breach of the legislation would be a crime and a person could be taken before the magistrates. That would be implicit in the last line or two of this amendment. I would suggest a different remedy altogether. We need not make such activities a crime; there could be a simple application to the High Court for an injunction. It could lay down the considerations that should apply. It would take no notice of trivial incidents, but for a flagrant breach in defiance of the legislation it could grant an injunction and that would stop the trouble. If need be, that could be followed up. I would not have fines by magistrates. I would have simply an application to the High Court to stop any untoward trading.
Those are little amendments that I would have, together, if necessary, with an appeal to the Secretary of State. I would have an injunction to restrain this undue trading. Otherwise, I would maintain the principle of local authorities exercising a restraint on undue Sunday trading in their areas. I support the amendment.
Lord Broxbourne: I rise only briefly to express reluctant disappointment at the speech of the noble Lord who moved the amendment. I hasten to add that I feel no disappointment about the quality and style and delivery of his speech. As usual, it was felicitous and acceptable to your Lordships. My disappointment was with the content. The noble Lord spoke for nearly 20 minutes. He expressed the good intentions that lay behind the amendment. No one doubts his good intentions. Equally, he will be aware of the dangers and proverbial destination of good intentions. What he did not tell your Lordships was how the machinery proposed in the amendment was to be given effect to.
Subsection (3), dealing with consent orders, states:
"except—
(a) on the request of the owner of the shop".
That is the only clear part of this subsection. It goes on to say:
("b) after consultation with any body appearing to them to represent relevant interests".
I have been seeking to construe and, at times, argue about provisions in statutes for far longer than I care to recall. I cannot readily recollect any provision so indefinite and so clearly clamouring for more precise expression than that in this subsection. There is no definition of the form the consultation should take. As to the machinery, the subsection states
"with any body appearing to them to represent relevant interests".
No criteria are to be taken into account by the local authority in coming to the conclusion that the body in question is representing the relevant interests.
Subsection (4) seeks to define the relevant interests. It mentions the interests of employers in the locality. The noble Lord did not identify them. Perhaps it would be the local branch of the chamber of commerce or something of that sort. That may not present any insuperable difficulty. The subsection then refers to the interests of employees in the locality. Again, possibly, no great difficulty arises because of the trade union representation.
Then, however, we come to this:
"the interests of the shopping public in the locality".
Who represents the interests of the shopping public? Who is identifying the shopping public? Surely, the shopping public are everybody. The noble Lord, like myself, used to be on the receiving end of a considerable volume of constituency correspondence from which one could form some impression of the opinion of one's constituents. But that did not constitute a formal consultation that could be interpreted and applied in a statute. The noble Lord spoke, as I say, at some length and most agreeably. But he did not condescend to particulars, as the Scots say, in any of these important matters.
Yesterday your Lordships in effect rejected a proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I say that your Lordships rejected it; he rejected it himself. As he knows, I do not always agree with my old and distinguished friend, more particularly on what he thinks about my Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill. But we can come to that on another occasion. At least, however, the noble and learned Lord had some machinery by which this question could be adjudged—the machinery of the Town and Country Planning Acts.

671
3.45 p.m.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross challenged the applicability of the town and country planning law in this context. My noble friend is nearly always right. I am not 100 per cent. certain that he is right on this. He took the view that planning jurisdiction would not cover this question. He thought that it would not come within the ambit of the material considerations expressed as a criterion in Section 17(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act. I wonder, when he made that judgment, whether he had in mind the judgment in Stringer's case, which I am sure he will recall. In that case it was said that any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. You could hardly have language wider than that. As my noble friend knows, it is no mere facon de parler when I speak in his case. But, with great respect, he may have construed the phase too narrowly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, may have accepted his rejection a little prematurely. I see that the noble and learned Lord nods assent. I am put in mind of—
Viscount Colville of Culross: I did have that case in mind. What I think I said was that whatever anyone thought about the consideration, as a matter of principle, of whether shops should be open on Sunday at all being foremost in the minds of the local council, it would certainly he outside the planning Acts. This was one of the criteria that emerged, I think, in the course of the debate.
Lord Broxbourne: If my noble friend puts it as widely as that, there may be substance in it. But the ipsissima verba of what he said, with great respect—we can check it out—was on a narrower construction. I was saying that the noble and learned Lord, with all his great distinction, accepted the rejection of his proposal a little prematurely. It reminds me of the question put by the then Morning Herald to Sir Robert Peel on his abandonment of the principle of protection:
"He has convinced others; how come it that he has not convinced himself?"
I would certainly have preferred the noble and learned Lord's amendment to that of the noble Lord. In planning jurisdiction, there is a machinery and there are well established procedures in which questions like this could be much better dealt with than in the loose—I use the term in no pejorative sense—or imprecise language of the noble Lord's amendment. Therefore, with great regret, because the noble Lord and I were constituency neighbours and friends over many years. I could not recommend my noble friend the Minister to hearken to the siren voice of the noble Lord and give favourable consideration to this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: It is a happy custom of this House that Members treat each other with courtesy and refer in very respectful terms to the nature of speeches which have been made. It is not in that spirit alone but in one of sincerity, too, that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and admire him as usual for the clarity of his thoughts and the way in which he expresses them.
672
If I may say so, I think that he made one mistake, which was that he forgot at what stage we are with this Bill. It is not Report stage; it is not Third Reading; we are at Committee stage. I am therefore going to interpret his speech as being in favour of the spirit of this amendment. What we do at Committee stage is to consider the kind of amendments that we might want to make to a Bill, and to hear the Minister's views on these. If, as is very common, there are faults due to omissions from the amendment, or there are words which are surplus to the needs of the amendment, we put these right at Report stage.
What is the issue of principle here? I believe that the stage has been reached when all of us ought to be frank with each other. There are some of us in this Committee who would have loved this Bill to be defeated because we thought its principle was wrong. We had the Second Reading. The principle was passed that there has to be some deregulation. We therefore do not go forward with amendments which try to kill the whole principle of the Bill.
But there are a great number of us who are very unhappy at the fact that Sunday is being turned into an ordinary day of the week, whatever language one cares to employ. We are unhappy that there will be workers who will break up the family Sunday—as I tried to say most respectfully from my point of view, and your Lordships will know exactly what I mean when I say that—and destroy the family life of Sunday. We are unhappy at the fact that people other than shopworkers will be forced to go to work—more transport people, more people clearing away rubbish, more police officers, and more inspectors.
Obviously I am not speaking for all your Lordships—I have no such authority—but those of us who feel that way are trying to see what we can do before we let this Bill loose upon the country without any controls at all. We shall never be able to put back any controls. If we keep some controls, we might, in the light of experience want an amending Act; perhaps we have decontrolled too much; perhaps we have decontrolled too little; and so we are looking at alternatives.
What alternative in principle can be better than to say, as the Minister has been trying to say, again with his usual eloquence and ability, "Look, this is what people want. We the Government intend to give them what they want, and those who do not want it need not do it." If I carry that principle to a logical conclusion, I say, "Well, what you think the people want nationally is not necessarily what the people want in the country village, and what the people want in Brighton is not necessarily what the people want in the part of London in which I live".
If one wants to know what the people want, one goes to the localities where their elected representatives are and one says, let them decide. Let the people who want to make representations make the representations locally. Let the Churches have their say locally. Let the people who do not want to follow the Churches have their say locally. Let them dislike the member who voted one way or the other, if they wish. That is democracy, and the answer is that they try to get a different council.

673
I hope that I am correct in saying this; the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, with all the authority he had in local government, said that some local authorities do not want it. I know, and so does the Minister, of many things that national government do not want to have to do. I am perfectly sure that there are many responsibilities within the Home Office that the noble Lord. Lord Glenarthur, wishes were given to another department. Responsibility for magistrates may be one of them; I do not know. But local authorities are there to carry out local duties, not to do what they would like to do. National government are in the habit of imposing duties upon local authorities, sometimes with the courtesy of so-called consultation, and sometimes without; or sometimes the consultation is rather perfunctory.
We therefore get back to the principle of this amendment. Of course it was the same as the principle behind the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, was absolutely right. I gather that he liked the idea of local authorities and he liked the idea of the matter being on a planning basis—the noble Lord is kind enough to nod his head. At Committee stage it does not matter whether it is the planning jurisdiction, whether it is the overall jurisdiction, whether somebody has left out an interest, or whether it may be difficult to ascertain from the present wording who would represent the various people who are mentioned, be they the consumers or whoever. I could say to the noble Lord—and I thought that he was going to mention this—what about the local residents? They are omitted from this amendment; I acknowledge that.
Before we get lost, and with independence of view, we must say to ourselves that there must be some brake on this; make it the local brake, and all that we shall be voting for on this amendment is that it should be a local issue decided locally by local authority. At Report stage, having heard the Minister, we shall try to get the amendment right to suit the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and all those who feel, as I humbly do in addressing your Lordships, that they are in favour of this amendment.
Lord Sandford: I believe that I can demonstrate to your Lordships' Committee why this amendment would be thought by the great majority of local authorities to be the second worst that we have considered—the very worst being the form of local option which we were considering yesterday in which the local option was exercised through the town and country planning legislation.
There is one preliminary point which I think we want to clear away. We have not yet decided whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. Therefore it is not clear to me, though perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Graham, can make it clear when he winds up the debate, whether he sees this amendment acting on its own or whether it is added on top of everything else that is currently in Part IV of the Shops Act and Schedule 5 thereof. I hope to goodness that it is not added on top of all those.
674
In any scheme of this kind there are the preliminaries; those are covered by subsections (3) and (4) of the amendment. There is the consent and the ancillaries to it; those are covered by subsections (1) and (2). There is the enforcement of it all which is not covered there at all.
Yesterday when we were discussing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, I mentioned the scale of this kind of operation in a number of places. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, clearly referred to the small shops which could afford to open for only a few hours. The figures I gave related to those kinds of shops; namely, those where the business and residential premises are rated together and the shopkeeper lives over the shop. However, here we are dealing with all the shops.
I should like to give your Lordships an idea of how this exercise would work in practice. In fact, I am referring only to the preliminaries and not to the exercise of the consent or its enforcement. Let us consider the preliminaries in the case of the district council of a city such as Leicester. Leicester has 3,900 shops in all. All those shops will have to be consulted. The amendment refers to the "interests of employers", and I assume that it just means the interests of retail employers. If so, that will obviously have to he put right. However, even if it concerns just the retail employers there will be 3,900 people to be consulted. The consultation would have to be of some substance because the matter under consideration would be the opening or the shutting of their shops.
4 p.m.
The next matter would be consultation with the employees. I am assuming again that the amendment is referring to retail employees and not all employees in the whole of Leicester. The retail employees alone number 10,000 or 20,000. It really would not be good enough just to rely on the trade unions, because within the retail industry they are not all that well represented and in the small shops they are scarcely represented at all. Therefore, we shall have to devise a mechanism for consulting between 10,000 and 20,000 people about the operation of this exercise.
Next, we have the shopping public, who have already been mentioned. The population of Leicester is 280,000. We can probably omit the children. However, children have pocket money and are, therefore, members of the shopping public, and so the number to be consulted would not be far short of the whole population. We could perhaps subtract the children below school age or perhaps the children below primary school age. Even so, there will be a very considerable number of people who, according to this amendment, will all have to be consulted properly.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt at this point. I am sorry to interrupt him, but while he is proceeding down this track—and I defer to his greater knowledge in this field—is it not the case that local newspapers are in business precisely for this type of purpose; that is, inserting notices which people can read if they are concerned? Surely that is a way of consulting local interests.
Lord Sandford: I am not prescribing how it can be done; I am just saying that it has to be done by some means, and I am giving an indication of the scale of the exercise. Whether people would be satisfied that they had been properly consulted if an advertisement or notice were put in a newspaper is another matter. However, certainly if we could subtract some of the children because they do not have any purchasing power we would have to add on a considerable number of people from outside the City of Leicester because they go into Leicester to shop. Again, that is a matter of judgment. All that will have to be done on that scale by way of a preliminary exercise.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Where in the amendment does it say that any of these people will have to be consulted? The bodies appearing to represent "relevant interests" have to be consulted. Where is all the rigmarole about 20,000 people all having to be consulted? Where is that stated in the amendment?
Lord Sandford: It is as plain as a pikestaff in the amendment. There are various bodies which would be representative of some of the people concerned, but by no means all of them, and I have mentioned some of them. Certainly there is the Chamber of Trade and perhaps the Rotary. If this amendment is to operate at all effectively it will involve consultation with all those interests. It says so specifically. It refers to the retail employers in the locality, to the retail employees in the locality, and to
"the interests of the shopping public".
I do not think I need go on any longer. I have given the Committee the flavour of the exercise that would be involved merely as a preliminary before we start to work out what form of consent we shall give and what we are to attach to the consent by way of incidental, supplemental or consequential provisions. All that will have to be repeated throughout the entire country. I submit to the Committee that that is a burden which local authorities ought not to be asked to bear.
Baroness Seear: After the brilliant line of lawyers who have spoken in their legal way about the amendment, I hesitate to come in on the debate. However, it seems to me that they have been concentrating on the inadequacies of the machinery for getting us to the place where we want to be. This is a Committee stage. I cannot believe that the advisers behind the Government—indeed, the Government themselves—with all the skill which they possess are incapable of devising the appropriate machinery for getting us to the goal of local option, if it is local option that we want.
I suggest that at this stage we should be arguing not about machinery but about where we want to go. I must say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that how he has managed to make such a meal of this amendment I really do not know. The description "any body" is two words and not one. We have not been told to consult anybody: we have been told to consult any body which represents relevant interests. Anybody would think we had never heard of represen-tative government in this country, and yet I thought that, outside your Lordships' House, that was what it
676
was all about. There are elected bodies which are representative in one way or another. If it comes to that, who has consulted all the people in the country about the Bill which is in front of us? If we are talking about consultation, it is much more difficult to consult all 55 million people than it is to consult all the people of Leicester. Surely what we have to decide is: do we or do we not think that local option is a good way to go? If we think that it is a good way to go, then I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will not go to the stake for the particular method of getting there. That is what we are arguing about this afternoon.
It has been said, "the people want", and we have been told again and again that they want to have freedom to shop. However, we do not have a clue what the people want. We do not know which people want what and where, and we shall not find out because we cannot find out at national level. We have a much better chance of finding out which people want what, and where, at local level, and that is what is being suggested. If it is pleasing the people that we want—and we have been told again and again that that is what the Bill is all about—then the best way in which to please them is by finding out where they are and what it is they want. Of one matter we can be absolutely certain: they most emphatically do not want the same thing in all different places between Land's End and John O'Groats. Therefore, if you are after pleasing the people, then do it at local level.
Lord Stallard: I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, because as usual she has encapsulated all or most of the arguments which have been put forward by the opponents of the amendment. I share her concern about the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I am well aware of his experience and that he speaks for the ADC. However, I do not think that that body could be considered to be representative of every type of local authority in the country. Therefore, the authority with which and from which he speaks is not nearly as widespread as he tended to lead us to believe.
I have had correspondence from local authorities, particularly in London, and from the Association of Municipal Authorities. I have seen a letter from the Association of County Councils. While they have not read the amendment, and nor are they commenting on the amendment specifically, their comments are obviously designed along the lines of trying to retain some kind of local authority input and local authority option. It may well be that the ADC has a different standpoint, although the noble Lord was careful not to put up an alternative from the ADC. It is rather like the skittle players who knock everything down but do not put anything back up.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, is not in his place. In fact, I apologise because I see that he has now returned. He was absent when I stood up to make my remarks but he is now in his place and I am delighted to see him.
Lord Broxbourne: It is I who should apologise. I went out for a couple of minutes to convey my apologies to a committee which I should otherwise have been attending. I am so sorry.
Lord Stallard: There is no need to apologise; I entirely understand. We all have various commitments and we all have to leave from time to time. None of us should object to that at all. I certainly do not do so. However, the noble Lord chided my noble friend Lord Graham for taking (I think he said) 20 minutes to put his case, and obviously he did not satisfy the noble Lord in those 20 minutes. The noble Lord then spoke for 10 or 12 minutes himself and did not say anywhere near as much as my noble friend had said in his constructive speech. I venture to suggest that the noble Lord repeated the arguments which he has made on hundreds of occasions—and he said as much himself—in various places. I have certainly listened to those arguments in other places, put forward by other authorities and bodies, for almost 40 years.
I wish I had time to illustrate how many times these lawyers have had their way with their fine words, rhetoric, and all the rest. The result has been absolute chaos and disaster for most of the ordinary folk involved, but it has been fairly good for the legal profession, and many of them have done very nicely, thank you. The industrial relations legislation is an example that springs immediately to mind; the accepted chaotic state of the planning regulations, which the noble Lord mentioned—and I accept that he is an expert in this area—is another minefield which has been laid by the legal profession to trap the citizen. I do not object to the noble Lord voicing his opinion, or taking the time he took, but I do object to him chiding my noble friend for doing almost exactly the same, although my noble friend was right as opposed to the noble Lord.
I, too, supported the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in principle yesterday when he moved his original amendment. I am delighted that this amendment is being taken today because it enables us to go further than the principle; we can now support some of the details mentioned by the noble and learned Lord.
I am a very simple fellow. I usually read words and am able to interpret most of them as can ordinary people. We may make mistakes, but we are usually not very far out. As I read this amendment, it allows local authorities to restrict the opening of shops within the areas over which a local authority has jurisdiction in the interests of the local population when this is desirable. As a basic principle, I should like to hear someone object to it. I should not have thought that it would be necessary to go much further than that in a place where everybody understands what we say, unless one has a vested interest in making a case to the contrary whatever it may be and throwing all principles to one side. I should have thought that we could have accepted that principle.
However, we have to argue the case. From what we have said so far, from the letters that we have received, from the examples that I gave yesterday and from the replies given to Questions in another place, it is perfectly obvious that there is a great deal of public concern about this Bill. There is also a great deal of concern among us about public opinion and about the needs of consumers. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was very concerned about public opinion, and in particular
678
consumers. This amendment will give the noble and learned Lord and those who are concerned about consumers and the public the opportunity to support giving the public and consumers the right to express their concern over particular areas. I hope that later when the noble and learned Lord speaks on this amendment he will support that view.
The amendment gives people a chance positively to support the principle that public opinion should be consulted. I must remind noble Lords that the public have not been consulted in any shape or form about this Bill. In relation to previous legislation it has been said that it was a manifesto commitment, and it has been crashed through—all the papers and amendments and resolutions. That is not the case with this Bill. Therefore, what is the excuse for it? We still have not heard. We are told that it is that there is public demand for such a Bill. How do we know that? This was not a manifesto commitment; we have not voted on it. I know of no consultations on it, and I am fairly in touch on most issues. Therefore, there are many questions to be answered.
In this amendment we are giving the local people the chance to be consulted so that the authorities are aware of their views. So far as I am concerned, that would include not only the local authority but the many voluntary organisations which are involved in every locality and which are far closer to many the problems than, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the ADC might be. They would be able to contact all those problem areas which some noble Lords opposite have mentioned.
4.15 p.m.
Subsection (4) deals with a definition of "relevant interests", and has already been mentioned. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, was unfair to my noble friend Lord Graham when he said that he had not spelt it out. I thought that he had spelt out the definition of "relevant interest". I believe that my noble friend spells out the relevant interests which are to be included and what they mean. If we had the goodwill and the constructive assistance of the legal profession, we could probably use a better form of words, but it is quite clear what is meant by "relevant interest" of the people in the area.
The subsection mentions the employers, and would therefore include their organisations, together with chambers of commerce and other organisations that exist for consultation with employers. That happens now; it is not something that has been introduced for the first time. Certainly in my local area employers are consulted because they have interest in transport facilities, car-parking and other matters, and because they are ratepayers and sometimes residents. Therefore, there is the facility for that.
Subsection (4) also mentions the interest of employees. Employees are not difficult to contact in any local area; they can be contacted through their organisations. I think that it has been generally accepted that that is not a difficulty. They would have an interest in how to get to the place of work on a Sunday, where they could park their cars, and whether the attendant-manned car parks would be open on a Sunday; in other words, they would want to know

679
whether all the normal facilities would be provided, including the catering facilities—where they would go for lunch or dinner and whether the cafes etc. would be open. They would have obvious problems, difficulties and interests about which they would want to be consulted. This amendment would give them that opportunity.
The subsection also refers to the shopping public, who are seriously concerned. We have mentioned the social consequences. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, the shopping public includes everyone. Everyone I know is very concerned about the social problems that will emerge if this legislation is passed, and we have spelt out some of the details.
The environmental difficulties are considerably greater in areas of inner London than they are in some rural areas and some outer London areas, about which we have heard. It is true that the only time the residents in inner London can park their cars, if they have cars, anywhere near the vicinity of their addresses is on a Sunday. During the rest of the week it is a waste of time trying because of the number of cars that come into the area from Monday to Saturday. Sunday is a day off.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, can laugh; every Bill is a joke to the noble Lord. This matter is not a joke to local people who know these difficulties.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord will give way, admirer though I am of the noble Lord's sense of humour, may I reassure him that it was not his display of humour which aroused my merriment, but a totally different matter.
Lord Stallard: I apologise to the noble Lord, but yesterday I mentioned the difference between his sense of humour and mine, and I maintain that there is a difference. This Bill is no joke to those who are involved with the environmental and social problems which will be imposed if the Bill becomes law. Local shoppers are worried about the extension of the everyday into Sunday which will give rise to problems of pollution and noise, which have already been mentioned; there is the possibility that they will incur penalties for parking on a Sunday, which would not have been the case prior to the Bill becoming law. There will be more traffic wardens, and more expense.
At the moment the streets are so congested that cars are not just double, treble or quadruple parked, but are parked on pavements and in culs-de-sac. Any visitor to London knows that, and this problem will now extend into Sunday. It is no good saying that it will not and cannot happen or that it does not exist. I invite anyone to visit Camden Town or Camden Lock on a Sunday to get a measure of the immense problems in terms of traffic alone with which the police are trying to cope. That is something that cannot be controlled, and will worsen. The proliferation of that market type situation will get worse the minute this Bill goes through.
My noble friend mentioned some supermarkets in his area. My local authority, too, are at this moment agonising over three or four planning applications for huge hypermarkets as the trend to move back into inner London with these great stores takes off. There was a trend a few years ago when they went outside the
680
inner cities and people travelled by car. They are now beginning to find out that that was not the answer and they have to get back into the inner cities and take over great chunks of them.
This Bill will mean that they are in, and the planning regulations which are inadequate at the moment will be even less adequate in this context. The only people who can bring together all these problems, all these opinions, all this consultation are the local authorities. Consultation now takes place on all the planning procedures I have mentioned. My local authority consult the local people. This takes time and trouble, but they do it—and it can be done. This amendment gives the local authorities that right, and I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to support it.
Lord Shinwell: Please excuse a few observations; I assure your Lordships they will be few. They will be confined so far as possible to the amendment before the Committee from someone who has not taken any part in the debate at all. So far as the amendment is concerned, valuable as it is either in principle or as an expedient, or perhaps I may use rather different language and say, as an escape from some further trouble and dispute among your Lordships, one thing is certain. It is that there will be no unanimity of agreement among your Lordships in this Committee either on this aspect of the problem or any other.
There are too many side issues. It is very natural. They are issues based mainly on principle of one kind or another. Some are theological, some are political, and some are concerned with the possibility of extending trade or with the effects on the working classes involved or likely to be involved. There are many aspects. My advice—if I may venture to indulge in a word of advice—follows the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Mishcon. He seemed to suggest that it was an excellent idea to go on talking about this subject in the Committee stage, because during the Committee stage ideas develop. For example, we have just heard from my noble friend behind me who has just sat down, and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in a speech of remarkable clarity earlier this afternoon.
The more we debate it, the more we hear what views Members of your Lordships' Committee have to express, and the more we hear from people outside your Lordships' House, the better it will be. It would be an excellent subject to debate at the next General Election. You can imagine how it would be presented then: the unanimity when members of the Labour Party come along and discuss the effects on the workers likely to be involved by what are called the "shopping interests of the public", whatever that may mean. It was used as a phrase, but no more than that.
Last but not least we should then be able to say to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that it is all very well to come along and say, "The Government have come to a decision, and we expect you to accept it." The Government can come to any decision they like, but they will never get the country to accept this as presented by them. You can take that as pretty certain. I speak from experience. That is most unlikely to happen.

681
Therefore, what do we do in the circumstances? The best thing to do is to go on discussing the matter in Committee as long as you possibly can. I could not understand the reference to an alleged sense of humour, but a sense of humour would be useful on this particular occasion. I say this without an ounce of malice or prejudice in my mind. I want to be excused from any allegation of that kind that may be directed against me from the venerable bishops I see over there, all determined that Sunday must be a day of rest. What is wrong with that? I have always believed that that was right, though not on theological grounds. Frankly, I never studied it from that aspect because my knowledge of theology is most imperfect. It is derived from the English version of the Old Testament. If anybody can read that and believe every word of it, they can believe anything. I hope that even my noble friend Lord Mishcon would not object to that. He may have read it himself. I spend most of my time reading things through the night. I have nothing else available. I find that all sorts of things have happened in the past, and because they have happened they are bound to happen again.
Let us suppose that somebody came along this afternoon and said, "I suggest a referendum on this subject". What questions are going to be asked? How many questions? The noble Lord who just sat down had many questions to ask. The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, one of the great orators who came from the other place, had a lot to say, and of course we had the remarkable oration from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. We have heard all that. But there is no unanimity, and there is not likely to be any before the election, during the election, or for many years after the election on a subject of this kind. It has a theological basis which cannot be set aside just by a Government decision. Make up your minds about that. The bishops know that by this time. They have had the experience.
Therefore, my suggestion is to go on talking. Talk as much as you like. It is nice to listen to you. Take it away and discuss it with your local authority people. During the Christmas Recess what could be more elevating, more enjoyable, more entertaining? You might provide some entertainment for the members of the local authority. I do not suppose you think of doing that at any other time, but you might do it on this occasion and ask them about the shopping interests of the people you are associated with? I think that the entertainment would come to a close very rapidly.
You have a great chance to do that before the election. What a subject! It is full of holes. I remember the speeches that used to be made by my noble friend Lord Jacques. He had one thing to say:" Don't ask the workers to work on a Sunday", as though he did not know that thousands were already working on a Sunday. Of course they will work if they are paid for it. What they complain about is that they are not properly paid for it. If you give them the right money, they will work any day of the week. They will even work double time on Sunday if necessary.
My advice is leave it where it is. It would be excellent if the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who speaks for the Government, would now rise and say, "In the circumstances, having heard a great deal that has been
682
said about the subject—and there is a great deal that has been left unsaid—I move that the Committee adjourn until we come back on 14th January and we can have a shot at it again and perhaps be better advised".
4.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It takes considerable courage to intervene after the vigourous denunciation of lawyers by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and after the buoyant vigour of the speech with which your Lordships have just been favoured by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I do not want to go over much of the ground that has been so well covered. I should like to come straight to the point of what your Lordships have been asked to do; that is, to write these words which are on the Marshalled List into a Bill which will become a statute—that is, subject to the sort of correction that can be made on Report and on Third Reading. We have got into a mess procedurally in that this amendment proceeds on the basis that Part IV of the Shops Act and its Fifth Schedule will subsist, which, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is indefensible. I say nothing about that.
I am extremely doubtful whether the sort of amendment to which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning adverted would be proper and suitable at Report stage; that is, to add an appeal to the Secretary of State. That is in the Town and Country Planning Act, and it goes on for pages. This amendment would look very different with that safeguard.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the principle that was decided on Second Reading was that there should be some derogation in respect of the present regulations. With every respect to him, that was not what was decided because the right reverend Prelate posed his amendment and one had a choice: should there be some deregulation or should there be total deregulation? Among the choices for some regulation were the various expedients that were examined and turned down by the Auld Committee. Among them was local option. My noble and learned friend quoted paragraph 219, but a few paragraphs on from that one finds the Auld Committee saying that they cannot accept the principle of local option, having given reasons why they should not. So it is not just a general principle that your Lordships are asked to consider at this stage: it is a specific provision to be added to the Bill, a new clause.
I adverted to the difficulty that its foundation is the subsistence of a law agreed by all speakers to be unacceptable and stigmatised by the noble Baroness as "indefensible". I say nothing of that. But an integral part of this new clause is the phrase:
"for the purposes of such transactions as may be specified in the order".
In other words, we have failed to find any way of revising the schedule. We have had the Jubilee Trust's attempt; we had the attempt of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham in his amendment, which was withdrawn, we had two attempts yesterday, both of which were found unacceptable; and your Lordships, with all your experience and wisdom, have found the job impossible. It is now proposed that it

683
should be given to every local authority to come to such decision as they wish, revising the schedule, adding to it, derogating from it.
There is another matter which seems to me to be very unsuitable for local authority choice, though it was not discussed by the Auld Committee. It is a matter that was raised on Second Reading, and that is the position of the religious and ethnic minorities. Under the 1950 Act, Part IV, those professing Jews who close for the Sabbath on Saturday may open for a half day on Sunday. According to this amendment that is to be open to discussion in every local authority. Can your Lordships imagine anything more unsatisfactory? But it does not rest there, because the Moslem religous minority would like to open on a Sunday. They told the Auld Committee so. That problem was faced by the Jubilee Trust in its pamphlet, but by virtually nobody else. Although the Jubilee Trust equivocated they seemed to accept that what was conceded to the Jewish religious observancy could not be withheld from the Moslem. So under this amendment there will be discussion in every local authority whether or not the skilled Asian shopkeepers to whom we have given refuge in this country shall be able to open their shops on Sunday. This is one of the matters by which local authorites can derogate from Part IV of the Act. Apart from the Auld Report and from all that I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will say, those objections seem to me to be quite insuperable.
Lord Somers: I am merely asking for information. Would it not be possible to accept the amendment as it stands and then to provide for the situation which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has mentioned (which I agree is very important) in another clause later in the Bill?
Lord Harvington: I shall intervene for just a few moments. I have listened carefully to all the speeches that have been made this afternoon. I have had a great deal of experience in another place with procedural matters, and I was very impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he said that whatever we did this afternoon could only be the last word in one way; that is, if we vote against it. If we vote for it, the whole position is as open as it can possibly be. I believe I am right in that, but if not some authority on the procedure in this noble Chamber will no doubt put me right.
I should have thought that the Committee could accept, if it believes that there should be some element of control in opening shops on Sundays, the principle which underlies the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, without in any way agreeing with the contents or wording of that amendment. Having listened to my old friend of 50 or 60 years, my noble friend Lord Broxbourne, at the beginning of our debate, I can only say that I agree with him. The amendment as it stands is not really a suitable amendment at all, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord opposite. But there are people who feel that something should be done in some small way, and in voting for this amendment they do not—and I include myself in this—in any way preclude the possibility of voting against any clause at
684
Report stage. Meanwhile, there is enough time for people who want to see something like this which is workable to get together with my noble friend and produce a substitute new clause at the Report stage to take the place of this.
It seems to me that the whole matter is of such a degree of importance that it should not be abandoned finally, which a negative vote this evening would bring about. I should like my noble friend to understand clearly that I am not in any way asking him to accept what I say this afternoon. He has got to get this Bill through for the Government; that is his duty and he does not have to accept suggestions coming from people like myself. I would just say that, so that people who may believe they would be doing irreparable harm to the Government by supporting this amendment will realise that they would in fact be doing no such thing.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I should like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Harvington. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, made the best speech at Committee stage, because it was the shortest. The next one in merit was made by my noble friend Lord Harvington. The issue is there. The question is whether some restraint on total deregulation can be achieved through the local authority operations. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, surely there is some way of getting this into proper shape without saying that these are the final words, or indeed by bring down a "chop" through voting against this amendment.
I only want to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I and others were bitterly disappointed with the performance of the Government last night on the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I still hope that the Government will learn to listen. I do not like the mood that we have had so far—a reluctance to listen—which seems to involve the sort of bland repetition of traditional arguments, all of them really Second Reading arguments, which we heard last night. If that continues then I am afraid it will be easy to blame the Government for having mastered the oily art of "speaking without any purpose".
4.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill: May I say a few words on this matter? I had hoped that, after the clarity with which my noble friend Lord Mishcon had put his case and also following the commonsense approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, we might have dealt with this amendment fairly speedily—but that would have prevented our having heard common sense also from my noble friend Lord Shinwell, who said there will be no unanimity; there is no general agreement. We have also heard the last two noble Lords who have spoken tell us in simple words, "Let's get ahead with this amendment and then clarify the position when we come to the next stage".
I am sorry that on this issue I must disagree with my fellow local association president. I know that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities of which I am president, are concerned about several aspects of this Bill and I should be most surprised if they did not agree with the idea of this matter being left to the local

685
authorities. First, it would meet the view of my noble friend Lord Shinwell that there is no unanimity or general agreement; therefore let us leave it to the locality to make the decision. One thing that will worry local authorities is the question of resource implications, whatever is decided on this matter.
Perhaps I might refer to two local areas. Strangely enough, since I have retired I have done more shopping with my wife than ever before in my life. I go down High Street, Walthamstow—the longest street market in Britain, I think I can claim. I do not know what the residents around there feel but I should be very surprised if they want the hurly-burly of six days a week repeated on the seventh day. That is a Labour controlled authority. I also go shopping in the more respectable area of Ilford, where about 30 roads are metered during the week. I wonder what the residents there would feel. Let those peple decide through their elected authorities. And when the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, criticises my noble friend's amendment, suggesting that we have to consult with thousands of people, I would just remind him of what subsection 3(b) of the amendment says:
"after consultation with any body appearing to them"—
that is the local authority—
"to represent relevant interests".
I do not know what the Minister's view on this will be, but in Bill after Bill after Bill there is reference to consultation with "bodies which appear to them relevant". Ministers have defended those words and I am certain the Minister will do so this afternoon. This seems to be one matter where, if there is not unanimity, we should let the people in the local authority area decide through their elected representatives.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the noble Lord explain? Is the proposal that we should vote for an amendment with which we disagree in principle for some ulterior purpose? Because if that is the suggestion, surely we have arrived in a sort of Cloud Cuckooland.
Lord Underhill: Surely the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, realises what I am saying. If there is agreement on the principle that this should be a local decision then we say we support the amendment and, with the Government's guidance, we can deal with some of the machinery at the Report stage. The essential principle is: should this be a national decision applicable whether local people like it or not, or should it be a local decision? That is all I am asking for, and I am certain that is what many other noble Lords require.
Viscount Brentford: Very briefly, I should like to make one point. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said in his opening remarks that he accepted that modifications should be made to the wording of the amendment if the principle was accepted; and I am sure that is what we are talking about. There is one difficulty about this Bill which was touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, but which has not really come out in the debate this afternoon. That
686
is that if this amendment is passed there would be a very wide variation of practice between one area and another.
I know that this is one aspect which has troubled the Government. However, if this principle is acceptable, the difficulty is not insuperable. It happens in America where there is this diversification from state to state, and people quite happily travel across a state boundary if they so wish. It does not seem to me that this amendment, which would meet the demands of the local areas, would make the difficulty insuperable.
Lord Glenarthur: After such a lengthy debate I think I have to start from the basis that we do not believe that there is reason to restrict shop opening hours, but that is a matter which we have discussed at length now on several occasions and so I will confine myself strictly to the difficulties that I foresee will be caused by this amendment.
Before going any further, however, I think I ought to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She was helped by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on the question of demand. That is something which I covered yesterday, but I am really surprised to hear the noble Baroness and also the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, speaking still as though there was no general demand for Sunday opening, or anything of that sort. Perhaps I might remind the Committee that I said last night that the most recent survey showed that 61 per cent. of the general public already do some shopping on Sunday, and if anybody can possibly say that 61 per cent. does not represent a demand I do not know what else does represent a demand.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Surely he knows the Auld Report backwards. Paragraph 66 states:
"It would … be misleading to leave the impression that there is an incessant general clamour for Sunday shopping."
Lord Glenarthur: The fact is that since Auld the demand has increased. I think that paragraph 66 is at the end of that chapter, and I shall certainly study it. But the point that is valid is that the increase has been maintained. We are now at 61 per cent., and what I have just suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is that 61 per cent. of people shopping cannot represent lack of demand. I shall now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord has allowed me to intervene, as he always does, with great courtesy and charm and I appreciate it. But are we really to listen to an argument that 61 per cent. of people who do something are 61 per cent. of people who want to do something? Of course if there is a shop open and you happen to pass it, you may go in. But if you are asked the question, "Would you object very strongly if you could not go in because the shop was not there?" you might get a very different answer. If the noble Lord the Minister could come before the Committee and say, "We have had a survey taken of people who are demanding that shops open on Sunday", I would listen to his 61 per cent. with respect. But to argue as he has done is not worthy of him.
Lord Glenarthur: I am sorry that the noble Lord feels like that, but what we have to work on is the basis of actual experience. It is no good delving into the realms of hypothesis to suggest what people may or may not do when they walk past a shop. The fact of the matter is that the surveys have produced the figure which I have quoted—
Baroness Lane-Fox: Perhaps I may for one moment support my noble friend the Minister by saying that, surely, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and even the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have taken some notice of the Consumers' Association and what it has to say. It is most anxious that there should be Sunday trading.
Lord Glenarthur: I am very grateful to my noble friend. She makes the point about the Consumers' Association, and a very valid point that is. Before I come on to some other—
Lord Coleraine: Before the noble Lord leaves the point of the 61 per cent. who shop on Sundays, if it is correct that only about 2 per cent. of the shops that are open are trading illegally—perhaps I am wrong there—and 61 per cent. of people are shopping on Sunday, surely that means that 61 per cent. are basically satisfied to shop on Sundays under the conditions that exist at the moment.
Lord Glenarthur: The point is that many of the shops which are now open and which these people visit are open illegally. Those shopkeepers can be punished by the criminal law for being open. If that is what the noble Lord really wants to continue to be the case—that people may visit shops and then the shopkeepers stand the risk of being punished by the whole weight of the criminal law—I suggest that he has got it fundamentally wrong.
May I refer to one point which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised about existing local authority powers. He said that local authorities already have powers to regulate closing hours. I fully accept that they do, though they are more limited than the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggests. For example, in respect of weekday opening under Section 1 of the 1950 Act they may make an order exempting shops from the require-ment to close for one halfday. Their powers under the 1950 Act are set within the rigid framework of fixed opening hours during the week and at week-ends, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is proposing an entirely different framework for local authorities—at least, he claims it is a framework. I think I shall show later on as I develop my speech that it really is no framework at all.
I shall turn straight away to the meat of this amendment. It is tempting to think that a solution to the difficulties we have been facing is to look to local authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested, to regulate the opening of shop hours to take account of local circumstances. But is it really acceptable for us to delegate responsibility in this way? Before we decide to do that we have to ask ourselves two questions: first, is this a local issue that can be satisfactorily resolved by local solutions; and, secondly, would local solutions lead to anomalies that offer no improvement over the present situation?
688
I suggest that the answer to the first question is that, while there may be local circumstances that have particular relevance—for example, a tourist resort—to leave the regulation of shop opening hours to local authorities will be to bequeath each of them the problem with which we have been grappling this evening, last night and indeed a couple of weeks ago. Each community will have those who feel strongly about the issue—and it is clear from the remarks that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that those feelings will remain—and we shall not only move our debate to each local authority, but we shall do so in the recognition that, as soon as some of them reach a decision, that decision will be open to further challenge as other local authorities reach different solutions.
Furthermore, this will be compounded by the inevitable change of political complexion which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also foresaw. I am sitting next to my noble friend Lady Trumpington who, I am sure, as an ex-county councillor and an ex-city councillor, never failed to take decisions which would benefit the community, and there are others who do the same. But, inevitably, the chopping and changing, to which political changes in local authorities will lead, cannot help and cannot please the people, which I think is the form of words which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, wanted.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord is again gracious for allowing me to intervene. But if ever there was a matter brought before Parliament which had no politics at all in it, I should have thought this was the one. It is the Government who have brought politics into this matter. There are no politics in it for the Opposition. The Committee has heard my noble friend Lady Phillips and my other noble friend, who are absolutely in favour of this Bill, and there are also others on these Benches who are in favour of it. The fact that we are speaking out individually means that we are speaking from conscience. We do not have politics in the forefront of our minds. I cannot imagine any local government member finding that he was dealing with this situation politically. He would be dealing with it in regard to the needs of the neighbourhood.
Lord Glenarthur: I have often heard from the Benches opposite the beguiling words, "There is no politics in this", whatever subject it might be. The noble Lord may feel that there is no politics in it, but I can tell him that there are certainly some enormous practical problems, as well as the very real practical difficulty of local authorities changing their minds from time to time and compounding the problem. I shall develop that in a moment—
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Lord afraid that a change of government might lead to a change on a much larger scale than would a change of local government?
Lord Glenarthur: I was challenged on the point that there was no manifesto commitment. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who challenged me on that. What I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and

689
perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is: are they saying that they will enforce the existing Act? Will they try to prevent late-night shopping? Will they try to prevent so many shops being open on Sundays by bringing the full panoply of the criminal law down upon those shopowners, should they at some future date be in a position to do so? Is that the sort of change for Which they really look?
We have heard the views of the Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Acts Administration mentioned many times during the course of this Committee stage. In its evidence to the Auld Committee it did indeed say that, given full support and adequate resources by local authorities, its members had found no difficulty in enforcing the Shops Act. I agree with the views of the institute. If we are prepared to accept that local authorities should spend limitless amounts of money and employ many more inspectors, I am sure that the number of offences against the Shops Act would be reduced. I do not believe that suppression at great expense by a local authority of a popular—indeed, an utterly harmless—activity is a course that would find favour with the authorities or, for that matter, with the ratepayers, either.
And at what expense? By the terms of this amendment each local authority will have to struggle with its own system of restriction and face anomalies and unfairnesses such as those under the present law. It will have the expense of enforcement and the added expense of receiving, processing and granting or refusing of orders. What guidance does this amendment give to the local authorities, which are supposed to be so much in touch with the needs of their local people, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested, on whether or not to make a consent order? I submit that the answer is, none whatsoever, and this is not the end of the matter. If a shopkeeper is refused a consent order, surely by natural justice he must be granted the right to appeal against that ruling. That rather reverses the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, about seeking an injunction.
5 p.m.
This amendment would create a burgeoning bureaucracy to deal with the problems and procedures that I have just mentioned, though, were I to feel that it would solve problems rather than create them, I might accept the enormous imposition on the ratepayer that it would inevitably cause.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord the Minister in full flow, but, as he is arguing so eloquently against the local authority option and in favour of this being a national responsibility, can he explain to the Committee very clearly why it is that Members of Parliament and Peers are not being allowed to make a decision on these fundamental matters at national level in response to the feelings of their constituents and of those with whom they are in touch? Does the noble Lord recognise that it simply is not adequate to show the difficulties of the local authority option without answering that question? May I further ask him to comment on whether he is aware that some of us who
690
are not particularly keen on a local authority option are driven to this by the complete intransigence of the Government over amendments which have been put forward in the past day or two?
Lord Glenarthur: I cannot speak for another place but I think that the tenor of the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester leads us all on to the question of whipping. That is basically the tone of his suggestion. If ever a Whip has been imposed in this House I would suggest that it has been imposed by the Bishops' Benches.
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Mishcon: I ask the noble Lord to sit down and this time I do not thank him for his graciousness. If there is a body of people bound in conscience—and I say this very seriously from the Dispatch Box—you do not talk about them being whipped. The idea of whipping is, "whatever your conscience says, we, the Government order you to vote". The Bishops are not in that position.
Lord Glenarthur: I am not able to answer for the Bishops. I am sure that my noble friends behind me would support me in saying that there are all kinds of difficulties in whipping in your Lordships' House which apply no doubt both to the noble Lord's Benches and to mine. I do not think there is any use in following that route just now.
Lord Broxbourne: Before my noble friend leaves that point, will he accept that, certainly in another place, whatever the strength of the whipping it is always understood that on matters of conscience Members follow their view?
Lord Glenarthur: That may well be the case. The noble Lord speaks with the experience of the other place which of course I do not have.
Perhaps I may return to the substance of the amendment and leave other issues aside. The present law creates geographical disparities between neighbouring local authorities with different views as to how the Shops Act should be enforced. Perhaps I may quote another example of the local area of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, which I am sure is familiar to him. In Edmonton one builders' merchant does a roaring trade on a Sunday. The noble Lord may know which it is. Sunday is his second busiest day of the week. A rival firm less than half a mile away on the same road and selling a similar range of goods—but in Waltham Forest, a different local authority area—can only observe this. That firm, required to close on Sunday, loses business to its rival every week as a result of this local authority decision. That kind of disparity will be enshrined in law by this amendment. I am not sure that the builders' merchants in this particular area will be exactly pleased by the noble Lord's amendment, as keen as he is to see local needs met, let alone what it may do to the question of the election of local councillors.
The amendment requires consultations to he undertaken with local traders, shopworkers and shoppers before reaching a decision. But if the majority of traders or of a class of traders do not wish

691
to open on a Sunday, should that view be used by the local authority to veto Sunday opening? Should a trader who wishes to open on a Sunday and who believes that such a course will be profitable be prevented from doing so by the views of his competitors? They probably have very good reasons for not wanting to open but they should not be able to prevent others from doing so. That really does smack of unfair restraint on trade.
By this amendment, the local authority must consult,
"with any body appearing to them to represent relevant interests".
It is not required to accept their views. A similar proposal was made in another place some years ago when consultation was required to take place,
"as may be reasonably practicable".
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, who has not spoken on this amendment, referred to an aspect of it which was raised today when he raised the question of markets. The noble Lord also went on to talk about traffic, which was mentioned also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Where a new market is opened and operates for more than 14 days a year, a change of land use has occured, and for such a change planning permission is required under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. It can be refused if the market is on an unsuitable day. This is not a matter for shops legislation but is adequately covered by planning regulations. My noble friend Lord Broxbourne referred in particular to the Town and Country Planning Act when he referred to Amendment No. A1, which we dealt with yesterday afternoon.
I turn to the question of traffic in places where trading is heavy. It has long been the case that the regulation of traffic and parking in local shopping areas is for local authorities to decide. They have general duties to consider the need for on and off-street parking and have wide powers to deal with any problems that may arise. Their powers are flexible. Parking restrictions can be made to apply at different times of the day, on different days of the week or at weekends, all depending upon local conditions and circumstances. Parking can alternate between one side of the road and another, and in all cases proper signing is required so that everyone concerned knows what the requirements are. Local authorities are in the best position to determine what is needed for particular localities. They are in the best position to judge at what time of day or on what day of the week problems may arise. The statutory framework they work within provides for all their proposals to be advertised locally. This enables individuals and other interested parties to make their views known.
I am drawing to a close, but I should like just to say one thing. It hinges upon a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. At present a shopkeeper may not trade on Sundays (with some exceptions) because in the past Parliament has not consented to his doing so. This amendment requires that a shopkeeper may not trade on Sundays unless the local authority consents to it. If local authorities cannot put a brake on Sunday trading to enforce Parliament's existing decision then I have to ask the Committee this question: is it likely that local authorities will resist public demand if the
692
decision is vested in them? I believe that the answer is that it is not.
We are debating a Bill to abolish all statutory controls on the hours for which shops may open. Abdicating our responsibility to local authorities will not help—particularly if, as the amendment indicates, they are given no guiding principles on which to base their decisions. My noble friends Lord Lauderdale and Lord Harvington were both concerned about principles. If there is a lack of principle then it is firmly demonstrated in this amendment because it offers none to local authorities. That is why I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I intend to be as brief as possible because the debate has exceeded the time I assumed it would take, and there are other matters to consider. Noble Lords who, knowing me, would normally expect me to deal head-on with the points they have raised will therefore excuse me for not doing so on this occasion.
I am saddened by the bleakness of the response made by the Minister. I do not say that he has not listened: he has listened with great care. But despite all that has been said the Minister has not budged one inch. He has not held out a single hope or crumb of comfort to those who are looking for some easement from complete deregulation. The Minister has said that Parliament has to accept the responsibility in these matters, despite the fact that it can be amply demonstrated that there are areas, groups and regions of interests that will be affected and that do not wish to see the will of Parliament exercised in this regard.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, reminded the Committee that I stated in my opening remarks that I recognise there are blemishes in the wording of the amendment. Indeed, omissions have been pointed out. However, I stick to the central point. This is known as the local option. The more that is put down the more that can be criticised. I was criticised at once by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for having said nothing about what are "relevant interests", and yet subsection (4) tries to spell out what they are. I went on to comment that that definition need not be exclusive.
There are those who are wedded to the idea of not altering the Bill one whit despite the evidence, and I accept that situation; but I hope that there are some Members of this Committee—and perhaps I am looking at them now—who will take this opportunity to do so. I say to the Minister, who himself has not been able to offer any hope, that in asking for this amendment to be passed (and I intend to press it to a vote) all I am asking is that the Committee accept in principle the delegation in some form of an exercise of power by local authorities in respect of these matters in their own areas as defined in this clause and as subsequently amended at other stages.
We have Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of this Bill in your Lordships' House, and we have Committee and Report stages in another place. It is possible to deal with this matter at all those stages. But unless we say to the Government—not only here but in a wider context—that this Committee believes that there needs to be some easement from complete deregulation, and that this is the way to do it, then we

693
shall be failing in our duty. I invite the Committee, on the simple principle of a local option exercised by local councillors, to follow me into the Lobby tonight.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 144.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Mar, C.

Banks, L.

Milverton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Molloy, L.

Blease, L.

Monkswell, L.

Brentford, V.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Caradon, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Chitnis, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Coleraine, L.

Porritt, L.

David, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rhodes, L.

Denning, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

St. Albans, Bp.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seebohm, L.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton. L.

Shinwell, L.

[Teller.]

Somers, L.

Grantchester, L.

Soper, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Stamp, L.

Harvington, L.

Stedman, B.

Heycock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Ingleby, V.

Tranmire, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Vernon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Whaddon, L.

Leicester, Bp.

White, B.

Liverpool, Bp.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Willis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winchester, Bp.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wrenbury, L.

McNair, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Butterworth, L.

Allerton, L.

Caccia, L.

Alport, L.

Caithness, E.

Arran, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Attlee, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Barnett, L.

Cathcart, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cox, B.

Beloff, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Blake, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

De La Warr, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Denham, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

694

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elton, L.

Norrie, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Northfield, L.

Forester, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Orkney, E.

Glanusk, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Parry, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gridley, L.

Portland, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reigate, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hives, L.

Rodney, L.

Holderness, L.

Romney, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rugby, L.

Hood, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Hooper, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hughes, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

Hunter of Newington, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Ironside, L.

Selborne, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Selkirk, E.

Kimball, L.

Shannon, E.

Kimberley, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Slim, V.

Long, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Strathspey, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Sudeley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Suffield, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Manton, L.

Terrington, L.

Margadale, L.

Teviot, L.

Marley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Todd, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V.

Melville, V.

Vickers, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Mersey, V.

Wardington, L.

Middleton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Molson, L.

Winstanley, L.

Monson, L.

Wise, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wolfson, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wynford, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Mottistone, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Munster, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Banking Supervision
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement.

695
"I am publishing today a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for strengthening banking supervision, with a view to bringing a new Banking Bill before the House early in the next Session.
"The proposals contained in the White Paper reflect the vital Importance this Government attach to effective supervision. They build on the findings of the review of banking supervision which I set up exactly a year ago today under the chairmanship of the Governor of the Bank of England, in the wake of the Johnson Matthey Bankers débâcle. Six months later, when the group's report was published, I told the House that the Government were minded to accept its two key recommendations. I can now confirm that both will be implemented.
"First, the new legislation will extend to banks the higher supervisory standards which Labour's 1979 Banking Act applied only to licensed deposit-takers, and not to recognised banks. This means that the so-called two-tier system will go. I have, however, concluded that it would be right to confine the use of the name 'bank' to institutions with at least £5 million paid-up equity capital.
"Second, the Government will do whatever is needed to permit effective two-way communication between supervisors and bank auditors. If this can be done on the basis of agreed professional guidelines, underpinned by statute, well and good; if not, we shall not hesitate to take appropriate further powers.
"However, assisted by the extensive consultations that have taken place since I made my Statement to the House in June, I have become convinced that it would be right in a number of respects to go beyond the Leigh-Pemberton Committee's recommendations.
"The key to better supervision is the organisation and ability of the supervisors themselves. Last October the Governor announced changes in the Bank's organisation to give supervision a higher priority. To carry this further, he will now set up as soon as possible a new Board of Banking Supervision within the Bank of England. The new board will be given statutory backing in the forthcoming legislation. It will be chaired by the Governor; a majority of its members will be experienced practitioners from outside the Bank of England. This will bring independent outside expertise to bear at the highest level and give more forceful direction to the task of bank supervision. The board's views will be separately identified in the Bank's annual report, which I lay before the House.
"Second, supervisors cannot do their jobs unless they have adequate, accurate and timely information. This was one clear lesson of the JMB affair. Under the existing legislation it is not a criminal offence to mislead the supervisors, even if this is done knowingly or recklessly. I propose to make it one—with appropriate penalties.
"As I told the House in June, one of the most conspicuous reasons for JMB's failure was that it was over-committed to a small number of closely-related borrowers. Building on the Leigh-
696
Pemberton group's recommendation, I propose to make it a statutory requirement for banks to notify all such exposures in excess of 10 per cent. of their capital base; and all exposures in excess of 25 per cent. will require prior notification.
"But important as they are, rules of this kind are not enough. Supervisors need to have a better knowledge of individual institutions at first hand. I therefore welcome the steps that have recently been taken to increase the frequency of supervisory visits to banks, on a routine basis as well as where there are grounds for prudential concern.
"The nature of banking is changing fast and the supervisory system has to keep up with it. We cannot prescribe for every eventuality in advance. In particular there is a risk that new forms of deposit-taking may fall through the supervisory net. I therefore propose to take powers to vary by secondary legislation the definition of deposits and deposit-taking around which the legislation will continue to be structured.
"I am also very conscious that banking supervision can no longer be considered in isolation. The Government are urgently considering the supervisory problems posed by the growth of financial conglomerates. One of the most obvious requirements is that those who supervise banks should be able to exchange information with other supervisory authorities. Legislation this Session will make this possible. Changes in the confidentiality requirements, including those in the Banking Act, will be secured through the financial services and building societies Bills this Session.
5.30 p.m.
"The details of these and other proposals are in the White Paper. They represent a considered, full and prompt response to the real lessons of the Johnson Matthey Bankers affair. The system of supervision we will be putting in place will be strict, without being a straitjacket. The proposals avoid the pitfalls of unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative upheaval. They also avoid the danger of setting out rules so rigid that they encourage compliance with their letter but not their spirit.
"As I told the House in June, an effective system of banking supervision is essential, not merely for the protection of depositors but for the financial health of the economy as a whole. Effective supervision is also a vital weapon in the fight against fraud, which the Government are determined to do all in their power to combat. But supervision cannot eradicate risk—nor should it. And it must not stifle competition. Nor, above all, can it derogate in the slightest degree from the overriding responsibility of managers to run their businesses soundly and properly.
"Together with the Building Societies Bill, to be read for the second time on Thursday, and the forthcoming financial services legislation, I believe the proposals outlined in this White Paper will help create a comprehensive and effective statutory framework for a rapidly changing financial services sector."
My Lords, that is my right honourable friend's Statement in another place.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Chancellor's Statement. I also welcome those parts of the Statement which give statutory backing and strengthening of the rules on notification, including the fact that it will be a criminal offence recklessly to mislead. Many people will be surprised that it is not already a criminal offence recklessly to mislead. The Statement also talks about appropriate penalties, and I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister could tell us what the Chancellor had in mind in that respect. However, would the noble Lord the Minister accept that it was not the rules alone which led to the Johnson Matthey scandal, but the failure by the Bank of England adequately to supervise what was going on: that was the real problem.
Arising out of that, I have one or two questions for the noble Lord the Minister. First, while I welcome the new powers of notification that the Chancellor referred to, may I ask what happens then? Suppose a bank notifies the new board that they intend to lend more than 25 per cent. of their assets to one customer. What powers, if any, does either the Governor or the new statutory board have to deal with that bank? From listening to the Statement and reading it and other papers, my impression is that there will be no powers whatsoever. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that such is the case.
Further on in the Statement there is a reference to changes in confidentiality requirements, which comes after a reference to the fact that changes will be sought with banks' auditors. What further changes in confidentiality rules does the Minister have in mind here? While I welcome, as I say, the strengthening of the rules on notification and other matters within the Statement, is the Minister aware that the worries of many people in the City and outside it, rightly or wrongly, centre around the impression that the City is a cosy club that can be left to regulate itself, albeit now with statutory backing but apparently with no real powers and no real teeth?
Those worries are surely strengthened by the Chancellor's Statement, for despite the failures of the Bank of England, despite the fact that the Chancellor himself is finding that the Governor's own recommendations were inadequate and has had to go beyond them, and despite the clear failure of self-regulation, he is now proposing to leave the new board of banking supervision within the Bank of England itself and under the chairmanship of the same Governor. Would it not he in the national interest and, indeed, in the interest of the City itself for the new board to be seen as being truly independent by taking it out of the confines of the Bank of England?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the Statement that has just been made and thank the Minister for repeating it in this House. We particularly welcome the opening statement in the foreword of the White Paper, which says:
"an effective system of banking supervision is as important as the banking system itself."
It goes on to say in the opening paragraph, clearly and concisely:
"The Government consider an effective system of banking supervision to be a matter of the first importance".
698
In so far as the Statement reflects that anxiety and that determination, it is very much welcomed.
Perhaps I may make some comment on some of the paragraphs. The assurance that the Government take this matter so seriously is reassuring after the shocking events of the Johnson Matthey affair. I am not discussing whether or not there was fraud; there was certainly inadequate supervision as well as appalling mismanagement in the bank itself and its lending policies.
So far as paragraph 34 is concerned, the two-tier system is to go. I very much support this because it brings the whole system within the same supervisory framework, though I wonder how the figure of £5 million of paid-up equity capital was arrived at. In modern banking terms it seems to me to be rather a small figure as a base for something which might call itself a bank. Perhaps the Minister would deal with that point.
As regards paragraph 5 and the two-way communications, I very much support the idea that the bank supervisors should have a direct line to the auditors of the bank. I hope that this will not he a system for bypassing the board of the bank concerned, and that the bank being reviewed by the supervisors and the auditors will be brought into the picture, since they have the corporate responsibility for the affairs of the bank. The reference there is to agreed professional guidelines, and I understand that the professional bankers are discussing this matter at the moment. Perhaps that point could be clarified.
Concerning the new board of banking supervisors, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I am not sure that it is a good idea if you separate the supervisory function from the central bank. I believe that the balance contained in the White Paper is just about right: that you will have within the bank a group of people who will exercise a supervisory function and that they will be of sufficient standing and authority as not necessarily to be a poodle of the bank but able to carry the weight and the power of the Bank of England in exercising their supervisory function. I would have thought that the balance was about right. What concerns me a little is the availability of staff to exercise this supervisory function, because what happened in the case of the Johnson Matthey affair indicated that there was inadequate staffing to support the bank in exercising its responsibilities.
As regards adequate information, as mentioned in paragraph 8, this takes cognisance of the disturbing events at JMB. With regard to exposure and the limitations on exposure of a bank's lending, I am glad that there is flexibility and not a statutory, limited figure because, as the Minister well knows, there is a wide variation in the quality of lending which requires to be taken into account when assessing the volume of lending.
Finally, the Statement recognises that the banks are not what they were. In the past they were simply lending institutions. The banks in the City of London have a great spread of functions in the new situation. They are financial conglomerates, and I am glad that this will be taken into account in the new financial services Bill, to ensure that all aspects of banking activity will be appropriately supervised.

699
This is a very important Statement because it deals with the protection of the integrity and the good name of the City of London. The City of London can easily be diminished and lose its importance as well as its substantial invisible earnings if we do not establish the proper standards which encourage people to trust our financial institutions and the authorities which supervise them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for their response to my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked me first of all what will be the penalties for recklessly misleading. They will be appropriate. It will be necessary, for instance, to consult the Home Office, as he will know from his experience, before bringing the exact proposals forward.
He next asked me what happens after notification if the exposure of a bank exceeds 10 per cent. or, on a prior notification basis, 25 per cent. The duty to notify being statutory, there will be criminal sanctions. It might also be necessary, according to what the supervisor thought as a result of the notification, to require extra capital if the exposure was particularly large. In the final analysis, it would be possible for the supervisor to require revocation of authorisation as an ultimate sanction. That is set out at the end of Chapter 10 of the White Paper.
The noble Lord also asked about the changes in confidentiality which the White Paper puts forward. The proposals in the White Paper are a power to disclose information among supervisors. I think that that is precisely addressed to the final point which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised about the fact that the financial institutions are changing so fast, particularly with the establishment of conglomerates, that it was felt that it would be necessary to enable supervisors, if the need arises, to discuss information among themselves without breaching confidentiality rules. It may also be necessary to disclose information to Government departments other than Her Majesty's Treasury in exceptional circumstances when the interests of depositors or the national interest might require it. It is also necessary, and so the White Paper proposes, for supervisors to be able to disclose information to auditors. That is so that the whole system of communication between auditors and supervisors which the White Paper strongly proposes can have real meaning.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, criticised the proposal that the new board should be placed within the Bank of England. The proposal for the board of banking supervision is that it shall be within the Bank of England but that there shall be a majority of outside members, five in all. Set out in the relevant chapter of the White Paper are the powers and responsibilities that the new board will have. As I say, the majority on the board would be independent members. The noble Lord may have noticed that in the White Paper there is also the proposal that if the Governor does not wish to take the advice of the majority view on the board he may do that but he must notify my right honourable friend. I would simply add that the proposal is that the annual report of the Bank of England to both Houses
700
of Parliament shall now include a specific report on the activities of the board.
5.45 p.m.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked why the White Paper had lighted upon £5 million as being the right threshold before a bank can use the name "bank". It is not possible to have an ideal solution and it is conceivable that that is not ideal. It is proposed that there will be power to amend by order in the legislation that will come before both Houses of Parliament. At this stage I simply say that it is hoped that that is about the right level, but it is a matter to which Parliament can come back.
The noble Lord asked whether consultation was going on at the present time on how the two-way cooperation between supervisors and auditors shall be undertaken. That is the case. The way that the Government would like to see it done is by professional guidelines which are set out in Annex 4 to the White Paper. We hope that that is the way forward.
The noble Lord also queried whether staff would be available in the Bank of England to undertake the new supervisory responsibilities set out in the White Paper. In addition to an executive director being appointed for the conduct of banking supervision within the Bank and a standing committee having been formed under the deputy governor to co-ordinate decisions at the Bank on supervisory policy, there have been new senior staff supervisory appointments and, I understand, more support staff appointed in order for increased supervisory visits to be undertaken and also so that there is enough flexibility for secondments, which are set out particularly in the White Paper. He will be pleased to hear that, as a result of all that, there has been an increase in that part of the manning of the Bank of England. I think that that answers the points which both noble Lords put to me.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, can my noble friend explain one point? The existing Banking Act is only six years old and was drafted precisely to avert such happenings as those at JMB. What reason do we have to think that we have it right now in view of the suggestion that we got it wrong before? Were not the powers under the existing Banking Act ample for the Bank of England to have caught JMB before it hit the ground, but they were not effectively used?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my right honourable friend's Statement takes the view that the JMB affair shows that there are shortcomings in the 1979 Act. We believe that the proposals that we have put before your Lordships this afternoon go in the right direction to put that right. My noble friend asks why the Government believe that that is so. The answer is the improvements in statutory powers and procedures for authorisation and supervision and also in the organisation of supervision. That is vital and was not addressed in the 1979 Act.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord clarify two points? Before asking my questions may I say that I very much regret the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in respect of the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Barnett that the

701
commission should be independent of the Bank of England, particularly in view of the fact that when the Chancellor read out his Statement in another place one of his colleagues said that it was the policy of the SDP that banking supervision should be in the form of an independent commission outside the Bank of England?
I come now to the questions that I have for the noble Lord. Lord Belstead. The first concerns the board of banking supervision. I have had the opportunity to read Chapter 5 of the White Paper. The Statement clearly says that the new board will be given statutory backing in the forthcoming legislation. The White Paper, on the other hand, says that the board will assist the governor in the performance of his banking supervisory duties. The areas on which the board will provide advice to the governor are listed as the broad issues involving supervision, the development and evolution of supervisory practice, the administration of the new banking supervisory legislation and the structure, staffing and training of the banking supervision. Nowhere does it say that this new board will have any executive authority over the activities of the banking supervision division.
I do not quite understand why a board needs a statutory backing—a very important phrase—simply to give advice to the Governor of the Bank of England, who can overrule that advice simply by writing a letter to the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This does not seem to me, in spite of the fact that there may be a majority, perhaps 75 per cent., of people on the board who are independent of the bank, a major strengthening of the powers of independence of the Bank of England in banking supervision.
My second question relates to the remark that the noble Lord made in response to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in referring to Chapter 7.17 of the White Paper. I think that I heard the noble Lord say, although he will perhaps clarify this for me, that there was provision to alter the figure of £5 million of paid up equity should that be found to be reasonable and acceptable in practice. I see no such undertaking in the White Paper. Will the noble Lord clarify whether this will be a facility in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or not?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, first disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on the view that the noble Lord had put forward over where the board of banking supervision should be located. If I may, I shall stick to the position of the Government who believe that it is right that it should be within the Bank of England. Noble Lords opposite will know a great deal more about this than I do, but I am advised that if one looks around the developed countries of the world one will see that the central banks of other countries, almost without exception, are involved in one way or another with banking supervision. We have believed, and I think it is the case, that in this country it is better not to alter things dramatically unless there is need. We believe that the spread of proposals within the White Paper, including that particular proposal, is the way to go about this move.
702
The noble Lord asked a question about there being nowhere any executive authority of the board of banking supervision over the banking supervision division in the Bank of England. It is indeed not supposed to be an executive arm of the bank. But we believe that it is important to give authority to the board and statutory reference to its existence. I would point out that the noble Lord mentioned paragraph 5.6 with its sub-paragraphs but did not go just beyond, to the words:
"it will be open to the Board and to Board members to raise matters of concern, either general or particular, in the field of banking supervision; and to discuss and provide advice to the Governor on such matters".
Finally the noble Lord asked whether I was right in saying that the £5 million trigger figure for being a bank name can be altered by order. I understand that this is the case. I cannot put my finger on it in the White Paper, but I shall try to do so afterwards.
Lord Alport: My Lords, am I right in understanding that there is now to be only one category of bank? In those circumstances, is it likely that some of those financial institutions which have not hitherto been regarded as eligible to be considered a bank under the present legislation will be considered under the new legislation provided they can achieve the capital requirement to which my noble friend referred?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is proposed that the two-tier system should be abolished. The Government intend to establish that there will be a threshold of £1 million of net assets for authorisations of institutions that will be authorised under this procedure. It may very well be, therefore, that matters will move in the opposite direction to the one that my noble friend suggests, and that some institutions that have been licensed to take deposits may find they do not have the necessary capital base.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, having spent the whole of my working life in a commercial bank, may I ask two questions and make one comment? My comment is simply to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that £5 million is a very small figure nowadays particularly in the new set-up after the big bang. It is tiny.
In the commercial banks we have always had an inspectorate completely separate from the managers of the bank. Once an inspector, you can ask any question about any advance, any asset and any liability and the chief inspector in my bank had direct access to the board. This is the biggest protection that you could possibly have in a bank where things happen very quickly. I do not believe that outside supervisors will have a hope of stopping quite a lot of things that went on in JMB. I would sugget that what are called banks should have an independent inspector of staff, as has been the custom in commercial banks in the past. Statutorily, I believe, they should have one, independent of management. Secondly, should there not be some link between these very adequate and experienced inspectorates and the new form of supervision?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there are, indeed, proposals in the White Paper that there shall be

703
internal controls in authorised institutions. I believe that the thrust of the White Paper on that point is entirely in accord with what the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has said.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can I ask the noble Lord one point put earlier by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe? I refer to the additional resources in terms of officials to be made available to carry out these responsibilities. I realise that the question is one that the noble Lord may not be able to answer today but he might perhaps follow it up in correspondence. How many additional officials above the equivalent rank of, say, principal in the Home Civil Service, will be appointed to carry out these responsibilities? There is no point, as I am sure the noble Lord would agree, in giving these additional responsibilities without having the staff back-up to do the necessary work. Is he aware that there have already been many criticisms of the inadequancy of existing arrangements to deal with company fraud, one made by a senior official in the office of the director of Public Prosecutions? Is he aware, secondly, of the woefully inadequate arrangements that we have in terms of the joint fraud squad between the Metropolitan police and the City of London police?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall not go over the ground again. I cannot give the exact figure. It is embedded somewhere in the White Paper, and the noble Lord must forgive me if it has slipped my mind. I would repeat that there have been additional appointments made both to senior supervisory posts and also the back-up posts in the bank. I shall write to the noble Lord, if I may, to give him the exact figures.

Board and Lodging: DHSS Payments
5.58 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 shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Department of Health and Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the position concerning supplementary benefit board and lodging payments following the Court of Appeal decision last Friday. As the House will be aware, the court upheld Mr. Justice Mann's decision in the Divisional Court on 31 st July that there was no power to make two paragraphs of the regulations passed by the House in April. The court rejected a cross appeal that the Social Security Advisory Committee had not been properly consulted before the regulations were made.
"The House will wish to know that the Government do not intend to appeal further. We shall take steps to identify from our records those cases in which arrears may be due because we did not meet the full charge, and to pay these arrears as soon as possible. To this end, we have sought and
704
received from the court today further guidance on how such arrears should be assessed.
"I should make it clear that the Court of Appeal judgment does not affect the current benefit position of those in board and lodging. Those payments are covered by the fresh regulations agreed by the House last month which came into effect on 25th November."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement, which is an endeavour to explain why a third attempt has been necessary before the Government could get themselves within the law. This is a Government who preach law and order to all their citizens and then do not do so well themselves.
The noble Baroness comes here as a brave, battling Boadicea making a Statement. The only trouble is that both the High Court and Court of Appeal have chopped off her chariot wheels, and we have to ask where she will go next. The Statement says that the Court of Appeal judgment does not affect the current benefit position of those in board and lodging, but can the noble Baroness confirm that on 13th December 1985 the High Court gave Camden Council permission to appeal against this third lot of board and lodging regulations? I am wondering whether the Government have any plans for dealing with another rebuff from the High Court of this country.
Secondly, I want to express our agreement and pleasure—if I may use that overrated word on this side—that the Government are not intending to appeal further on the present case; though an appeal by the department to the House of Lords would have been a rather interesting exercise which I think some of us would have enjoyed.
I should like to raise another point. On 21st November when we debated this issue I pointed out to the noble Baroness that a copy of a letter which I had which was being sent to claimants telling them about the need to move on after specified times did not set out the geography of the area from which they had to move. This has caused some problems among young people who have had these letters telling them that they cannot stay in the area where they are staying without telling them the area to which they can move. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has had time to re-write that letter and to do something to help people to know the geographical limitations without having to spend £7 buying the Stationery Office book which contains the information and these maps.
Can the Minister, who has promised to identify cases in which arrears may be due, give us any idea of the amount of money involved? Are we talking about millions, or hundreds of thousands? Can the Minister tell us roughly how much is involved?
I need clarification on this last point because I am getting many queries from people in great need. Can the Minister confirm that the present regulations last only until 1986? What steps will the Government take—although this may have to wait for another day—to deal with the causes of these problems: lack of jobs and lack of housing for young people?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for coming back to us once again on this fraught subject. We welcome the statement that the Government are to identify those who are entitled to arrears of payment. But how are they going to do it? How are the Government going to identify claimants, a number of whom have disappeared from the system owing to the Government's illegal action? Will they ask any of the voluntary bodies to help them to publicise the position or identify these people? I am thinking of bodies such as the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. If so, will they privide the money to help those bodies to do so?
As the noble Baroness pointed out, the real trouble is that all this technical and serious breaking of the law by the Government is distracting us from the real problem. When will the Government look at the alternatives to their present policy? For instance, when are they going to look at steps which are necessary along with the present policy, such as the licensing of establishments and relating charges to the conditions which apply in them? As it is, the illegal April regulations have encouraged unscrupulous landlords to put more beds into rooms and decrease comfort and conditions in so many of these lodging places.
Finally, when will the Government carry out a serious review of homelessness among young people? We can be thankful to the Government that this scandal has brought to the attention of the general public the fact that there is a very real and escalating problem in this field. It is quite clear that the Government's actions so far have not in any way dealt with the situation. Is it not time that we looked at the whole question in detail? There has not been a serious review of homelessness among the young for 10 years; and the position is very different now.
As the noble Baroness comes back to the Dispatch Box month after month to repeat different variations on this theme I cannot help feeling that the Government are floundering in a sea of ignorance, and I am forced to say that they also lack compassion. However, if they could deal with the ignorance, we would be at least one further step forward.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. They will understand when I say that I feel rather like those people at a football match who sing, "Here we go, here we go, here we go." This is the third time we have discussed this matter.
I shall deal with the appeal which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked me about: It is quite true that Camden Council has applied to the High Court for judicial review. The hearing is scheduled for 24th February. I cannot comment on that matter because it is sub judice. The effect of the judgment relates only to arrears for the period between 29th April and 24th November. Current benefit entitlement is not at issue. Neither are things which have been brought up in the past, such as homes and hostels. They are not affected. It is not possible to assess the cost of the judgment at this stage. It depends on how many boarders were liable for charges above the limits and how high charges were.
We have already improved the letter to claimants about their position, and we shall look again to see
706
whether it can be further improved with regard to the geographical position.
The financial and time limits on current claims are not affected. There must be some limits on the amounts that taxpayers are expected to finance. We believe that those put out in the November regulations are reasonable. We are committed to a review in the first half of 1986, and to any resultant changes at the time of the July uprating.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has used this occasion once again to fly his various kites which have nothing to do with the question which we are actually discussing.
However, let me say in reply to one of the points which he raised that we shall identify cases from our records. We have made sure that no case papers have been destroyed.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I too, should like to rise to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. It is true to say that there has been a great deal of discussion about the financial implications of these board and lodging regulations as well as their legal implications. I should like to ask the Minister whether there has been any consideration of the democratic rights of the individuals affected, particularly with reference to their ability to vote for representatives who will represent them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can only say that I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for his interesting observation.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
6.11 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Shops Act 1950 (number of Sundays)
. In the Shops Act 1950, in section 47, at the end there shall be inserted the following:
"and provided further that a shop may be open for the serving of customers on not more than 5 Sundays in any one calendar year".").
The noble Lord said: This is one of the various amendments which have been put down to provide the Minister with an opportunity—as he is able to do and as we, frankly, admit he is entitled to do—to point out some of the idiosyncrasies of the amendments and to say why they fall outside the intention of the Bill. As one of the right reverend Prelates pointed out earlier in an intervention, there are some amendments which Members of your Lordships' Committee would not naturally have considered as a solution to the problem. However, in the light of finding one amendment after another falling down your Lordships may come to the conclusion that a certain amendment should be supported because it is the best one on offer.
As I shall say in respect of most of the amendments to which I speak, I maintain my complete opposition to the general relaxation which is contained in the Bill. Moreover, those with whom I am in touch outside the House—the co-operative movement and the Union of

707
Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—certainly maintain their hostility to the intention to deregulate all shopping hours. Nevertheless, I am in the business of attempting to produce a better situation than that presented by the Bill.
One of the arguments which have been advanced is that when shops are entitled to open, very few of them do so; secondly, if they do open, it is generally at Christmas time. Christmas appears to be the period when most shops are anxious to do business, to respond to customer demand and to meet customers' needs. Businesses are in the business of making profits, which is not a dirty word in your Lordships' House. They are in the business of selling their commodities in order to survive, expand and prosper.
We are suggesting in the amendment that every shop—without restrictions in respect of the goods which it can sell—may open:
"on not more than 5 Sundays in any one calendar year".
At the moment they cannot open any Sundays. In future, if the Government have their way, they will be able to open 52 Sundays. In our amendment—and I am not suggesting that it is remotely a halfway house; that would be 26 Sundays—we are trying to take on board the genuine interests which say that there is a time of the year when people genuinely want to shop on a Sunday more than at any other time. We do not accept the argument that there is a demand in general. We do not accept the argument that it is a free country and that shops can open if they like.
As I have already said, if some shops close while others are open they are inviting some kind of commercial disaster. As long as they keep closed, as is their right, while others open, as is their right, inevitably what trade is available will go to the shops which are open and there will be a snowball effect. Therefore, this is an opportunity for the Minister to say that there is something in our argument.
6.15 p.m.
We think that there are special circumstances. Certainly we would have very much liked a dialogue whereby a more sensible package of ameliorations to total deregulation was capable of being found. We have sought a strengthening of the schedules. Later we shall be talking in terms, outside the five Sundays, of freedom to open at various times. I put these proposals forward not because they are the ideal solution but because they may be the best that we can find.
There is no doubt that once the Bill becomes an Act and is capable of being implemented there will be all kinds of radical changes not merely in the pattern of shops and customers, but also so far as the workers in the shops are concerned. Sunday will be part of the working week; indeed, the normal working week will include Sunday. Make no mistake about it, we who want to keep Sunday special will find that in negotiations pressure will increasingly be brought to look on Sunday as a day that is entitled—according to wages council and other agreements—to have premium payments, and Sunday will increasingly be sought by most employers to be just another weekday.
We have raised the problem in respect of residents and the general environment. We think that if we limit it to five Sundays it will be better than if it were 52
708
Sundays. We are not saying that we think they should have this provision visited on them for five Sundays. However, five is more acceptable than a greater number.
We have received a number of representations, as have all of your Lordships. I should simply like to read into the record a copy of a letter which has come my way. It was sent to a very senior member of the Government by a footwear specialist who operates in Clarkston Toll in Glasgow. This is what he says in a letter to the Government about the impact of Sunday trading on him in Scotland at the present time:
"I have been a strong and loyal supporter of the Conservative Party for some years and have given considerable time and finance in supporting the Party …
I think we have seen considerable erosion in family life over recent years and even now parental control over families is in many cases sadly lacking. If Sunday becomes just another day with businesses open, families will not have the normal one day as a complete unit and this will be bad for family life. I understand that you have appealed to families, Church and schools to help give good guidance to youngsters and this I entirely agree with, but your appeal will be sadly weakened if trading is permitted on a free for all basis on all Sundays".
There is much in the same tenor from someone who is entitled to believe that this is the best Government and that, in general, the decisions taken by this Government are the best decisions in the interest of the nation. However, on this particular point I wonder whether the Minister will recognise that there are members of his party, trading in Scotland, who are appalled at the impact on family life.
Different debates throw up different questions. In this amendment I am concerned to minimise and reduce the number of Sundays upon which this damage can be done. There may not be five Sundays at Christmas time. Two or three years ago, when I first entered into these discussions, the argument was that by and large in Scotland it had emerged that more shops were open on Sundays in December than on other Sundays. Therefore, we are talking about three Sundays in December. There may be two other Sundays. I admit that five may be the wrong figure; it may be four or six. I am arguing for a limitation on the number of Sundays on which it is possible for all shops to sell anything for any number of hours. This is another way in which we have approached this matter.
In the next series of amendments I try to restrict Sunday trading to the small shop and try to define a small shop. However, this approach is very simple and I think that it will be acceptable to local authorities. When they make their arrangements with their employees (for example, their refuse collectors) and when they make transport arrangements with their bus conductors and operators they will have to take Sunday trading into account. When the police look at their schedules as to when a big match or other big event is to take place they will have to say that on those five Sundays, which can be notified, extra police will need to be provided.
There is no doubt that any large shopping area already has shop-related crime statistics—statistics of crime which relate to the fact that shops are open. Sadly, it is an inevitable consequence of modern living. Whether it is mugging, petty larceny, snatch or whatever, there are crimes which are related to shops being open. Therefore, the more Sundays shops are

709
open. the more the police will have to realise that they have to provide a service on a Sunday. I hope that the Minister will make some helpful comments. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: During the Second Reading I confessed to my criminal activities and to those of my fellow garden centre operators by selling on Sundays a whole range of goods not listed in Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950. I also stated that the only item that garden centres could legally sell was cut flowers on 52 Sundays of the calendar year. Sunday trade for garden centres represents not less than 25 per cent. of the weekly turnover. To be able to sell a garden centre's full range of products on only five Sundays in any one calendar year would be quite ludicrous. Were this to become law today, my next appointment after leaving your Lordships' House would be with the receiver.
Yesterday I was pleased to listen to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester telling us that he had previous experience of running a cathedral shop. I am sure that with his knowledge of retailing even he would agree with this amendment. A reduction in income occasioned by the loss of 47 trading Sundays would make a significant hole in the funds available for the maintenance and running costs of that cathedral. The right reverend Prelate pleaded, I think ably, for the special case of cathedral shops. They serve a public need and I have no doubt that they are of considerable benefit to tourists generally. However, I and other garden centre operators have a special case as well—namely, our customers' needs, our employees' well-being and the survival of our businesses, which this amendment can only destroy. I shall vote against it.
Viscount Brentford: I shall be brief. I have every sympathy with the fear of my noble friend Lord Norrie about going to the receiver. I am also very much afraid that if the Bill is passed unamended, a large number of other traders will have to go to the receiver. Therefore, this is a mutual fear problem.
As my noble friend the Minister will remember, the history of this amendment emanates from a question from his colleague in another place when he asked what our views would be on this particular amendment, which meets a particular demand by shops to open during the Christmas period.
I cannot say that I support this amendment as warmly as I do some of the other amendments before the Committee, but we thought that it was worthwile putting this one down in order to have the benefit of the Committee's wisdom and comments. Certainly the colleague of my noble friend the Minister seemed to be pressing the amendment, saying that this would meet a very real demand because many of the public wanted wide open shops during the Christmas period.
This amendment accedes to that pubic demand. It does not restrict shops to opening on December and late-November Sundays only. If shops are located on holiday sites, they would have the option of opening during other periods if they so wished—for example, during August. I leave this amendment with noble Lords for their consideration. Clearly, it will depend on the deletion of the deletion of Part IV, if I have
710
phrased that correctly and so at present it is hanging slightly in mid-air, just as some of the other amendments are. However, I think that this amendment, in spite of involving a fairly minute change in the present law, meets a very substantial measure of public demand in the country.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to make a few brief remarks about this amendment, which has been clearly presented by the noble Viscount and by my noble friend Lord Graham. They have put it forward as another option, so that all those who are concerned about de-regulation can think about it, look at it. and briefly discuss it. For that reason it is very important.
It is important that from time to time the argument should be widened from that 61 per cent. of the public, to whom the Minister has referred this evening, who are the consumers. Although it takes much longer, it is important that every amendment looks at all the different sections of the community who will be affected by the Bill. That comes to much more than 61 per cent. It includes those people who will work in the shops and residents near the shops who will be affected in different ways if shops remain open on Sundays.
Briefly, I should like to mention the framework within which we find ourselves discussing most amendments. It was very well described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester when he spoke about a wider and more generous framework of what makes for the good of the family and the common good of the community. This is the framework within which the right reverend Prelate thought that discussions should take place; he did not think that they should be based on the 61 per cent. of people who would do the shopping.
There is also some logic in this amendment. There is no doubt that people wish to shop at certain times of the year more than at others. Christmas is certainly one such time and the sales period is another. One has only to think of the sales in some shops and of the terrible crowds. Of course it would be much better if shops were allowed to stay open for an extra few days to help get them through the sales period.
Therefore, so as to give us an opportunity to see again this whole question in a wider and more generous framework, as the right reverend Prelate said, and to see it from the logical point of view—there are times when people need to shop more than at other times, and times when shops need to stay open more than at other times—I think that this is a serious amendment to consider.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: If this amendment were to become law and that law were to be effectively enforced, the position would be a great deal worse than it is today. I should like to comment on its effect on London, where I am a retailer. Just consider for a moment the vast number of visitors who come to London each year from other parts of the kingdom and overseas. What sort of impression do you imagine that we shall create on the person hoping to spend an enjoyable weekend here?
At present in many London boroughs the Shops Act is widely ignored. As others in your Lordships

711
Committee have already confirmed, all types of goods are available on Sundays, including books from shops of which I am a director. If the law were to be rigidly enforced and, except for Schedule 5 transactions, trading permitted on only five Sundays, that might cater for the Christmas trade—but for precious little else. Our overseas friends could perhaps be forgiven for assuming that we had returned to the days of Calvin. In practice I believe that even if this amendment were adopted, the law would continue to be ignored, and I doubt very much whether the local authorities would alter their attitude to enforcement. I find this amendment to be wholly unacceptable.
Lord Monson: The remarks I have to make may not seem immediately relevant to this amendment, but I can assure the Committee that they are, as they are obliquely relevant to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, yesterday evening took offence when he thought that I had described Amendment No. 4, to which he had added his name, as crazy. In fact it was the list of permitted goods, with all its inevitable anomalies and inconsistences, that I described as crazy. The amendment, taken as a whole, I merely thought mistaken.
However, I should like to extend an olive branch to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and to all those who are unhappy about this Bill. Something that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said when we were debating Amendment No. 4 made me think deeply as I drove home yesterday evening. The noble Baroness, in so many words, asked plaintively whether the Government were willing to accept any amendment whatsoever to this Bill—or were they going to be totally inflexible?
I support this Bill, both as an economic libertarian and because I believe it is wrong to use the criminal law to harass people who are providing a service to the public. Yet I freely admit that if by some extraordinary mischance the passage into law of this Bill totally unamended led to 90 per cent., or even 80 per cent., of shops opening from 9 a.m. until 5.30 p.m. every Sunday in the year, I would be just as dismayed as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the right reverend Prelates and other opponents of the Bill.
Of course I do not accept for a moment that this is likely to happen, but it is just conceivable. There is therefore perhaps something to be said, in the light of the invervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for making some small gesture in the direction of those who fear the effects of changing the law, if only to minimise the acrimony during the passage of this Bill through both Houses and to get the Act off to a good start when it goes on to the statute book.
What I, in good faith, tentatively suggest, because I devised it in my head when trying to get to sleep last night, is that somebody (whether it be the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and his friends or, better still, the Government) tables an amendment at Report stage which has the effect of obliging all shops, irrespective of floor space, number of employees, the type of goods sold or the locality—except shops at airports, railway stations and petrol filling stations—to close between 1 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. every Sunday of the
712
year, exept for those immediately preceding Christmas Day.
Just think of the advantages. The consumer will scarcely suffer. The consumer is accustomed to most small shops closing for lunch on weekdays in any event. Should the consumer crave cigarettes, drinks or crisps, he can always get them from a pub, which would be open until 2 p.m. on a Sunday. One would only be deprived of food and drink for the half hour between 2 and 2.30. The small shopkeeper would not suffer. He would probably welcome such an amendment, because assuming he lives on or near the premises, it would enable him to have a relaxed lunch with his family.
What such an amendment would do would be to make it uneconomic for most large stores to open all day long on Sundays. In practice they would have to decide whether to open from 9 to 1, or alternatively from 2.30 to, say, 6.30. It would guarantee, if a guarantee is needed (I am not sure that it is, but other noble Lords take the opposite view) that Sunday could not possibly become like any other day. There would still be the occasional slight anomaly such as that described by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale yesterday when he referred to W. H. Smith at Victoria Station which is open all Sunday, and which would give unfair competition to another bookshop in Victoria Street. But surely enforced closure for one-and-a-half hours a week out of a total of perhaps 60 trading hours can be tolerated.
Above all such an amendment would obviate the need for all those amendments dealing with floor area, the number of employees and the location, which are all so difficult to monitor and police, and those amendments dealing with morning or evening opening only on Sunday, about which there has been so much—and there is going to be much more—dispute. This may be the basis for a possible compromise which would reassure those noble Lords, Members of another place, and the public who are worried about the total disappearance of the traditional Sunday, and at the same time give almost total freedom to the trader.
Baroness Trumpington: This rather reminds me of the old days when the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I seemed to be facing each other daily, either on TV or before a radio microphone, arguing on the same subjects as today. In those days the noble Lord was a consultant for USDAW. Plain curiosity prompts me to ask him whether he still is. He is certainly a valiant champion for them to have on their side.
There is no doubt some attraction in allowing shops to open on five Sundays at periods of peak demand, such as just before Christmas. But I must assure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that this is no small amendment. It is the Government's view that such limited opening would be no solution to the present difficulties in the law. Exemptions would still be required for Sunday trading for the rest of the year. Once shops were seen to be open on a few Sundays there would be pressure for additional Sunday opening, and we could certainly expect blatant flouting of the law.
Think of the extra pressure on local authorities. Are we to expect local authorities to maintain registers of

713
the number of times a shop has opened on a Sunday during the year, and then ask them to double check each shop to make sure that their doors were closed after they had opened five times? Let us credit shopkeepers with being able to manage their own business affairs.
I cannot leave unchallenged Lord Graham's assertion that Sunday opening will inevitably be harmful to family life. Successful family life has all kinds of shapes and forms. It is absurd to suggest that it is necessary to prohibit the shops from opening in order to preserve family life. For many families the opportunity to go to the shops on a Sunday as a family will be welcome and enjoyable, and 'this includes the families of shopworkers. The families of shopworkers need not suffer either.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, quoted from a letter. I should like to quote the words of one small shopkeeper, a wife and mother, who will welcome the opportunity to open on Sundays. She wrote to me to say:
"As for Sunday opening dividing the family, this is another sentimental myth. I actually enjoy being on duty on Sundays because there is such a pleasant relaxed atmosphere without the weekly pressures, and it is very much a happy family day—much less divisive than the traditional day when the wife spends hours roasting lunch, the husband goes to the pub and then dozes in front of the sports on television and the bored children squabble".
Having listened to my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Arran, I am absolutely sure that the Committee will agree that the regulation proposed by this amendment could not possibly work and I must therefore ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: To say that I am disappointed at the reception that has been given to this amendment is an understatement. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, valiantly produced another variation. I am prepared to consider that. I only hoped that the Minister would say that she will look at it out of the heat of the debate. I know that speeches are written and the Minister has a clutch of them headed with one word at the top "resist": that is before the debate starts. I should like to feel that from time to time one of the ministerial replies not merely acknowledges what has been said (that is said very often) but agrees that something said in the debate will cause the Department to reflect. The problem for the Committee is that we know from what we have heard before and what we are hearing now, that the Government are apparently not prepared to reflect on any aspect of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, began by saying that if he could open on only five Sundays in the year and had to close on 47 he would be in the receiver's hands. An hour ago he voted against an amendment that would have allowed him to open for 52 weeks in a year. He may have thought there was something wrong with that amendment, but there could not be anything wrong with the fact that if the local option had been carried (in my estimation, without anticipating what Enfield or any other council would do) there is a good chance that garden centres per se would be the kind of local area that would be given a consent order. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for other reasons, quite clearly not commercial, decided that he
714
did not want his council, wherever they were, to have that option. Having turned down 52 weeks, I can understand why he is apprehensive about having only five. But he cannot have it both ways.
One noble Lord pointed out the detrimental impression on overseas visitors who found that they could shop or be entertained in the way this Bill would provide on only five Sundays, suggesting that this would give a bad impression of the country. I wonder what the noble Lord and other tourists feel when they go to France, Denmark, Austria or Germany, where, as I understand it, though I am open to correction, a kind of blanket closure with minimal exceptions exists. What impression do they get as tourists to those countries? We are not saying that what is good enough for Germany is good enough for us, but we should not make too much of what it is we are asking to do.
The Minister said that we were making far too much of the consequences not just on the little woman or the working mother or family life. She pleaded in aid at least one letter, though I am prepared to believe that there is more than one, the writer of which welcomes the possibility or opportunity of working on a Sunday. Will Ministers take it from me that those who represent working mothers in an organised fashion—this is not the totality, because more than two million work in distribution and more than one million of those are women—represent strongly that the damage that will be done to their pattern of life and work pattern is very serious indeed. A married woman with children working in retailing has to rest upon the protection in Clause 3 and the schedule to enable her to say that she does not wish to work on a Sunday, but the Minister has not thought that through. For the married woman with a family the fewer Sundays—
Baroness Trumpington: May I remind the noble Lord that the person who is working in a shop now is protected against working on Sundays? If she is working in a shop now she will go on being protected under the Bill. I also remind the noble Lord that he should not just concentrate on married women, because there are an awful lot of lonely single people.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I should like to bring them both together, in a spirit of conciliation! The noble Baroness said that the married woman, who at the moment works in a shop with six-day trading, need not worry because she will be protected in the future. She will not have to work on a Sunday if she does not want to. That is the biggest red herring that the Government have attempted to perpetrate in this Bill. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester pointed out, the experience now where shops open on a Sunday though they are not entitled to, is that their employees are invited to work. Of course they can say "No", but all sorts of devices are used to compel them to work, either economically or because otherwise they will become disadvantaged when it comes to promotion and in other ways. But those are debates not just for another day but for another year, because we shall return to those subjects next year. Perhaps we may conclude the Bill next year.
We have heard much about the small shop and the large shop. All the evidence that has been produced and will be produced indicates that the likelihood is

715
that, when they are enabled to, more large shops will open on a Sunday than open at present. That is the purpose of the Bill. Another element is the enterprise of retailers—and I say good luck to them. It only requires a small sector of the market to decide to take advantage and to open. The small shops can continue to be closed if they wish, but they will do so at their peril. Other large shops will remain closed at their peril. We know that the large shops do not want to open but they will be forced to open to retain their market share.
I am very disappointed by the response of the Minister. I would normally say that I shall read carefully what she has said, but I had the advantage of doing that before the debate started. I knew well what she would say on this, on the previous and on the next amendments as well. The Minister has an opportunity of surprising us by saying something different from the one word "resist" at the top of the brief. I shall consult the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to see even at this late stage whether there is some mileage in consulting people outside to get a reaction. Amendments have been tabled and advice has been given. I am bound to say that marrying the two opportunities—that is, up to one o'clock and up to six o'clock with a division in the middle—I think would have an impact which would please me. A number of large shops that may be persuaded to open all day would be disinclined to open if they had a truncated day, with all the problems of staff, wages and the shop being closed when others might be open. I shall consider that, but, in the light of the disappointing though not unexpected reply from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 7:
Insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Shops Act 1950 (selling area).
. In the Shops Act 1950, after section 47, there shall be inserted the following:
"Partial exemption.
47A. Section 47 shall not apply to a shop of which the public have access to not more than 25 square metres.".").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 7, and in doing so I believe it is appropriate also to deal with Amendments Nos. 9, 13 and 14.
Amendment No. 9: After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Shops Act 1950 (number of employees)
. In the Shops Act 1950, after section 47, there shall be inserted the following:
"Partial exemption.
47A. Section 47 shall not apply to a shop where not more than three shop workers (as defined in Schedule 1 to the Shops Act 1968) are employed and present at the same time.")".
Amendment No. 13: After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Shops Act 1950 (monthly receipts)
. In the Shops Act 1950, after section 47, there shall be inserted the following:
"Partial exemption.
47A. Section 47 shall not apply to a shop at which the average monthly gross receipts do not exceed £20,000.").
Amendment No. 14: After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Shops Act 1950 (rateable value)
. In the Shops Act 1950, after section 47, there shall be inserted the following:
"Partial exemption.
47A. Section 47 shall not apply to a shop comprising premises with a rateable value not exceeding £1,500.".").
These four amendments are variations of the attempt to define "a small shop". Let me say to your Lordships that the Government have paid lip service to their desire to look after the small businessman in a number of ways, none more patent than their anxiety to protect the small shopkeeper. When the Minister was challenged last night he said it would be not impossible but against the principles to discriminate in favour of one size of shop as opposed to another; in other words, he was not in the business of providing some of the protections that we were putting forward. The small shopkeeper will listen very carefully, and he will not be too impressed by the purity of the Minister's argument.
They would certainly have welcomed protection; and, indeed, they expected the Government to protect the small shopkeeper in the same way as the Government pretend to protect the small businessman and the small manufacturer. The Government find ways in other fields. We are all part of the parliamentary machine, and we question, we are caustic, we are cynical about the effectiveness of those ways, but when it comes to a question of protecting other aspects of economic life they are able to do it. When it comes to providing some opportunity to protect the small shopkeeper, however, then there are great difficulties.
The National Chamber of Trade tells me that it represents 150,000 businesses and it is desperate to see some protection. I am not talking about political protection but about what are seen to be the consequences of this Bill, unamended, on the small shop. By and large, the members of the National Chamber of Trade are small shopkeepers. I have a letter here which was sent to me—in fact, it was sent to every Member of Parliament in anticipation of the Bill proceeding first in another place. It is written by John Irish, who is the chairman of the Voluntary Groups Association. He says that the association represents the interests of approximately 8,000 independently-owned United Kingdom grocery shops which would be affected by the Bill. They would not be affected beneficially, as the Minister would have us believe, but detrimentally. This is what the letter says:
"We are one of 12 organisations who were privileged to give oral as well as written evidence to the Auld Committee and were comforted by the sympathetic hearing given by its members to our arguments on behalf of the smaller retailer. To summarise, whilst we recognise that there are many failings within the existing Shops Act, we did not wish to see a complete de-regulation of trading hours, but instead to argue that the law should regularise what is happening now, namely that smaller businesses open on Sundays to meet particular trading needs within the community, and that this trading could be regularised by permitting stores of a specific size of up to 3,000 square feet to trade within the legislation.
"Whilst they seemed prepared to accept this argument, the eventual outcome of the Auld Committee was to represent to Government that there be a complete de-regulation".
Then they go on to make their case. Of course, 3,000 square feet is much larger than the dimensions mentioned in my amendment.
I am deeply interested in support from your Lordships' Committee, but I am even more interested in the Minister's reply. Could the Minister indicate that he is prepared to look at some means of providing some protection for the small shopkeeper, whether by size, turnover, the number of employees or rateable value? All these means have difficulties; they all have

717
bureaucracy and they all have the possibility, as the Minister has pointed out, that there will need to be policing and enforcement. I would simply say to the Minister that we are going to have a situation in future where there will be no need to enforce the means of trading on a Sunday because there will be no regulations by which to police it. There may be no regulations to police the opening hours now, but many people outside believe that because councils have failed to employ an adequate number of enforcement officers and because enforcement officers have not been supported or encouraged by their councils, or by the Minister, to do their job, the law has been brought into disrepute.
When it comes to enforcement in future, the enforcement officers will still have far more responsibility than in the past. The county authorities and the Association of County Councils sent to many people, including myself and no doubt the Minister also, their reasons why what, on the face of the Bill, were savings were not there at all. They point out that legislation for weights and measures, hygiene, the sale of goods, trade descriptions and safety at work will all need to be policed on a Sunday. Of course, the Minister may tell us that traders really cannot expect to keep up the standard on a Sunday and that they need only keep it up until 6 or 7 o'clock on weekdays and not on Sunday. I will say to the Minister that there will he traders who will very quickly deduce that councils are not policing those laws after 6 or 7 o'clock on a weekday or on a Sunday, and they will say, "Isn't that marvellous?"
What about the protection of the consumer, of the worker and of the environment if in fact this is not going to be enforced? Do not let us have the red herring that all these amendments I am putting forward will need to be enforced: of course they will. I have been distressed more than once by ministerial replies which have said that it will cost a lot of money and it will be difficult to enforce. I would say to the Minister that all the amendments in this group are a genuine attempt to provide a measuring rod whereby we shall be able to indicate that the small shopkeeper has received some support from the Government. If the Minister is still not prepared to accept that the small, independent, specialist retailer is not concerned and apprehensive—in fact, very worried indeed—by the impact unless small traders are protected, let me tell him what some of those specialist groups have told me.
The Master Bakers' Association have drawn my attention to their concern at the decline of the specialist bakery and the inevitable growth of the large supermarket. This is not an argument about the pattern of retailing but about how we control shopping on a Sunday. But you must take on board the trend. The Master Bakers have told me that they represent 3,500 businesses and 30,000 people, and 7,000 shops are working with them. So far as they are concerned, if Sunday trading as envisaged by the Minister comes in it will not only mean the loss of their trade but will seriously damage the working conditions of the people they employ. I should like the Minister to take that on board, too.
I have also been written to by the National Federation of Meat Traders. The Minister, who does
718
his homework, will be aware of the special provisions in the 1950 Shops Act—I think Clauses 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64, with special exemption for Jewish traders—which are specially written in to protect the lot of the butcher. The butcher argues that a grocery shop can advertise to open at 8 o'clock and that the manager can come along at half-past eight and find the shelves full, and that the shop may be designed to close at six and at a quarter past the whole premises may be closed up—but not so the butcher. The butcher has to be there to prepare the meat. What one wants is fresh meat. It is not a question of opening at nine o'clock, because most butchers' shops are expected to open at eight o'clock. In order to do that, they have to be there very much earlier to accept and prepare the meat. Then when the shop closes down the butcher has to make sure that it is all hygienic. The butchers are very concerned indeed.
7 p.m.
The most damaging evidence that I have received as to why the Minister should protect the small shopkeeper is in a document called The Euromonitor. Here we see, without any doubt, the changes which have taken place in a range of businesses. In the food retailers' section in 1980, large grocery retailers accounted for 22 per cent. of the total trade and by 1984 the figure had increased to 25½ per cent. In 1980 the small grocery retailers had 7 per cent. of the total trade which has declined to 5½ per cent. That is a 21 per cent. reduction in their total. For small butchers the figure was 3·7 per cent. in 1980 and in 1984 it had gone down to 2·8 per cent., which is a reduction of 24 per cent. in the total. The figure for bread and confectionery has dropped from 1·4 per cent. to 1 per cent. That does not mean that there is less meat, bread, flour and confectionery sold. It is still being bought, but it is being bought in a larger unit rather than in a smaller unit. But that is for debate on another day.
This series of amendments is designed to help the independents, most of whom supported this Government in 1979 and again in 1983. I have a lot of letters which I shall not read tonight—there are many other days when they will be read—from supporters of the Government who say that they have been let down by them and that they are appalled at the fact that no protection has been provided for the small shopkeeper.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London sought yesterday to define a small shopkeeper as someone having a shop with five employees or less. My amendment refers to three employees. We are talking about other means of defining the word "small". I am not primarily concerned with the detail of the alternatives, because I genuinely accept that some of them will be extremely difficult to work. But these amendments provide the Government with an opportunity of responding to the needs of the small shopkeeper. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has explained that he is taking all four amendments together and I shall respond accordingly. I have to say to him that all these amendments seek to add alternative complications to the ragbag—and that is not too strong a word—that is the Shops Act 1950. All the

719
present restrictions would remain, but one liberalising measure would be allowed.
The first one to which we come is that of shops with a floor area of 25 square metres or less accessible to customers being allowed to remain open. I have to say that I find his amendment to be based on rather strange logic—and the noble Lord has not really spelled out to me, and perhaps not to others of your Lordships' Committee, the essential difference that he is seeking in each of these amendments. I may buy a pot of paint at 10 o'clock on a Sunday in a tiny shop in the high street and that is acceptable. It is condoned and sanctioned by the law. Yet should I buy that same item at the same time, on the same day, in the same high street, but in a shop possibly only slightly larger, then the shopkeeper has committed a criminal offence and can be punished under the criminal law.
The noble Lord nods his head in assent. That, quite clearly, is the effect of the amendment. I cannot seriously believe that we should be expected to agree that only the smallest of shops can generally open on a Sunday. The amendment appears to support the small shopkeeper, but, in fact, I do not think it does. It may help the owner of a kiosk or other tiny shop, but small shops in general would not be covered by this dispensation.
I am sure, however, that many shops would leap at this opportunity to open. A judicious arrangement of shop fittings on Sunday, limiting customer access, giving more service or operating as a catalogue shop would enable a great many shops to open. This would be less convenient to customers and would require even more shop staff to work on Sundays, and I do not think that is the noble Lord's purpose.
Since all the present restrictions on Sunday trading remain, all the consequent difficulties of enforcement will continue to plague local authorities. In addition, they will have to keep a check on the floor areas of the many shops that will open. These will have to be measured on Sundays, because modern shelving and displays allow shops to change their configurations with very great ease. Many shops are likely to have a weekday self-service configuration and a Sunday restricted access configuration.
I turn now to the question of the three workers, which is covered by Amendment No. 9. Its effect will be that the purchase of goods, when three shopworkers are in a shop, will be unobjectionable and, again, the full panoply of the criminal law is to be applied should one additional worker be present. Another effect of this amendment would be that many of the shops at present open on Sundays illegally—which are not open for the amusement and pleasure of their owners; there exists a demand for their opening which is why they are open—will still not be able to open. In this respect I suggest that the amendment is a pretty poor compromise.
We believe it is wrong, in principle, to intervene in the market place to try to tip the balance in favour of one group of retailers against another. Once there is an intervention there will be accusations of unfairness and temptations to legislate in the other direction to redress the balance. It will be a never-ending saga if the balance is to be decided by Parliament; such as, for example, the balance between bat and ball, which has
720
eluded the MCC after 200 years of tinkering with the rules of cricket.
If a shopkeeper employs, say, six people, what will be the easiest way for him to comply with the terms of this amendment and be able to open on Sunday? The answer is to dismiss three workers or not to replace them when they leave, and what good will that do? It will increase unemployment and leave three shopworkers doing the work of six. Since he is not an employee, the shop owner may feel it incumbent upon himself to work all day every Sunday to assist his three shopworkers. This will surely be a burden on small shopkeepers and on shopworkers, rather than a protection to them.
The proposal leaves us with the problems, the anomalies and the inequity of the present law and adds yet another layer of control, another layer of complexity, so admirably described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, yesterday. Who is to police this and who is to pay for the policing? It is very easy for the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to dismiss so simply the question of cost, but I have not heard an answer as to exactly how it is to be funded. We have here another burden proposed for local authorities to shoulder and for ratepayers to pay for.
Some shops gain their market share by low prices, which are made possible by employing self-service methods and a few staff. This is particularly true of chain stores, which have the added advantage of bulk buying. On the other hand, many small shops attract customers by their good service and in many cases that needs more staff. Is it right for Parliament to deem, as this amendment does, that self-service retailing is acceptable on a Sunday but that shops providing service should not be allowed to open?
We now turn to the question of gross monthly receipts over £20,000. I do not know how many times I have said it, but retailing is not a suitable area for the criminal law and for regulation; yet amendment after amendment has attempted to push the criminal law in a variety of different guises back into that arena and to limit the opening of shops by law on Sundays. Retailing is not harmful. A majority of people in this country do not regard it as in any way improper, and earlier I gave the percentage of people who actually go out to buy things. It is not a good principle that the law should intervene to protect one group of retailers and disadvantage another group.
Experience elsewhere has shown that deregulation is not a threat to small shopkeepers, especially those who are enterprising enough to grasp its advantages. This amendment attempts to draw a quite extraordinary arbitrary line between the acceptable and the most unacceptable. Small is beautiful, and yet the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has not so far decided how small small is, since as I understand it the amendment will not apply equally to all types of shop.
I am no expert in retailing and I do not intend to analyse in depth the implications of the amendment, but I can perhaps point out to the noble Lord that not only is £20,000 an arbitrary limit, but it is also a limit which would affect different classes of shop in radically different ways depending on the nature of their stock. The amendment does not meet public demand.

721
Garden centres and do-it-yourself shops will still not be able to open. Its anomalies will remain and so will its injustices; and local authorities, as I said in relation to the other amendments, will find themselves engaged in vetting annual accounts as well as the enforcement problems they already have to contend with.
Lastly, we turn to the question of rateable value, another yardstick by which the noble Lord wishes to judge a small shop. I have to say to him that it is not more acceptable than the others. I understand that the rateable value of a shop is based on the rental that it is considered that that shop would earn. It does not directly consider the success of the business within those premises, nor the level of profit earned by the shop. This yardstick is just as unacceptable as the others which the noble Lord has proposed. It could have the effect of allowing small shops in back streets to open but not those on prime sites; or even those in predominantly residential areas but not those in city centres.
Perhaps I may add that the figure of £ 1,500 rateable value is a remarkably low one. I do not know where the noble Lord got it from. I understand that one would be hard pressed to find a shop with a rateable value of £1,500 in cities, although one might find a small shop of about 16 ft. frontage by 40 ft. in depth in the rural areas. This is not very large and virtually rules out Sunday trading for shops in cities where the main demand lies, unless of course the shop is of the kiosk type. I suggest to the noble Lord that this is arbitrary and I can see no way in which it can be anything but inefficient.
I make no apologies for stressing the great and established demand for Sunday trading, even if there are those who say that this is not the case; it is, and it is borne out by opinion polls and is shown by people's present shopping habits. These amendments would not allow shops to open without some trick or some juggling of the furniture. They attempt to impose restrictions where they are not wanted and to prevent popular Sunday shopping venues from opening. The amendments will not achieve the aim which the noble Lord seeks. They will he circumvented by rearranging shops to conform with the terms of these amendments—one or other of them—to the annoyance of customers and at the cost of employing more people on Sundays and making enforcement more difficult and expensive.
7.15 p.m.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I respect his persistence in trying to find some kind of compromise, some half-way house between total deregulation and just a little bit of regulation—a little bit, but with the full weight of the criminal law behind it. I respect his view and I respect the views of his supporters. But I have to say once more that the issue has been discussed again and again. Over the years it has been ducked. It has been examined by the Auld Committee and now at last we have come to the point of Government-led legislation following on the many admirable attempts by Private Members of your Lordships' House and elsewhere to remove the anomalies and the bureacracy which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, himself acknowledges exists. I really
722
cannot see why he wants to maintain it. These amendments would be ineffective. They would bring the law into yet more disrepute when it is found that the law can be avoided by a conjuring trick with the furniture. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The only trouble with the reply of the noble Lord the Minister is that he has not really responded to the amendment in the same spirit and light in which the amendment was presented. The point of the amendment, like many others, has been at the same time to restrict Sunday trading and to provide for the needs of the consumer. My noble friend has suggested many different ways of doing that. He is quite honest in admitting that they are all different options and therefore they must be responded to on the basis that they are different ways of changing the present Bill. The noble Lord the Minister has replied time and again that it is not for the Government to intervene in the market place. The noble Lord has always gone back to the area from which he argues.
There are a few arguments in favour of providing protection for small shops and at the same time providing for the consumer which perhaps have not been mentioned. Many large shops would be glad to see an amendment to allow only small shops to open. I understand that many large shops told the Auld Committee that they did not wish to open on Sunday. They included large concerns such as Boots, Marks and Spencer's, Tesco and the John Lewis Partnership. They made it quite clear that if the Bill goes through, they may be forced to open in order to maintain their market share. Why make market conditions such that large shops have to open when they do not want to?
It has been proved through statistics that small shops can satisfy Sunday demand. Survey evidence has shown that people spend very little on a Sunday. I am told that it is £2 or less that people spend to top up their food requirements on a Sunday. It has been repeated many times, though it cannot be repeated often enough, that there is a great social value in the small shop. Many people in the community prefer to shop at a small shop. They may be old and infirm or they may not like the hustle and bustle of large supermarkets.
There is the question of how you define "small". My noble friend has put forward various suggestions about how to define "small" and has offered these ideas to the Committee. My noble friend has done his best with his amendment to produce another way both of responding to Sunday demand as he sees it and protecting us from complete deregulation as the Bill proposes at present.
Lord Sandford: I am sure that the noble Lord has done his best, but none of the schemes which he has put before us will work. My noble friend on the Front Bench illustrated how perverse they are in their effects in some ways, but I think perhaps he let the noble Lord, Lord Graham, off a little lightly over his rateable value proposal.
I have with me the average local authority rateable values of all the small shops where the private dwellings are assessed with the business dwellings, and

723
of all the large shops. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be that in London, for example, the average large shop in Enfield and in Waltham Forest could trade on Sunday but the average large shop in Redbridge would be prevented from doing so. In the other metropolitan areas, the average large shop in Birmingham would be prevented from trading whereas the average small shop in Coventry would be allowed to trade. In Walsall, the average large shop could trade but in Wolverhampton the average large shop could not. In Exeter, the average large shop would be prevented from trading whereas in Torquay, next door, the average large shop could trade. It is perversities of that kind that make such a solution as that proposed by the noble Lord unacceptable.
Lord Stallard: Following on the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I can see the weight of the argument about rateable values. But I can also appreciate the principle behind all the amendments.
Lord Sandford: We can all see the principle but the detail eludes us.
Lord Stallard: The detail can be changed if we accept the principle that small shops need protection. If we do not accept that principle then I cannot help it. Most of us accept that there is a need to protect small shops.
I will give the Committee one example. It seems to be the case that many of the large shops will be unwilling participants in the free-for-all deregulation of Sunday trading. We have heard details of the big names in the trading world who are unwilling to participate. Big stores are tending to become one-stops. That means that one can go into one large store and buy everything. One can see that system operating in many of the big stores that are open now.
Where does that leave the small shop? One does not go to a one-stop store and then leave it to search for a small shop at which to do more shopping. The small shop will lose out in the normal run of events. One could say that the small shopkeeper only profits on Sundays when there is no competition from the huge supermarkets and hypermarkets. Therefore, Sunday opening must have an effect on the small shop. And just to say, "That's too bad. That's the way it goes. That's life", and all the rest of it, is not good enough.
There is a case, as my noble friend has just said, for some element of protection. It may well be that the amendments are not word perfect. I bow continually to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his expertise on drafting. However, the important point is the principle behind the amendments; the principle of providing some form of protection.
The noble Lord the Minister returned to the question of demand. I am still not convinced about that demand. Yesterday I quoted from a document on this subject. It is accepted that there is consumer demand for Sunday trading, but we accept also that an analysis of the polls that have taken place shows that it is a qualified demand. It is a demand to fulfil certain needs. It is not a demand for an overall free-for-all. It is a demand qualified by certain needs.
We have tried to convince the Government that even within the orbit of meeting a demand for certain
724
needs, there could be a compromise written into the Bill. Still the Minister repeats his argument about demand on the basis that if he repeats it often enough, everybody will believe that the whole world is demanding a free-for-all every Sunday for all shops. Worse than that, the Minister gives the impression that the Government are not too worried about enforcement. In fact, the Government give the impression that they see Sunday as being a kind of real free-for-all, with no controls, policing or enforcement. The Minister keeps using the emotive phrase "criminal law". He keeps making mention of the whole weight of criminal law with all the emotion that he can muster. He is really saying that there should be no controls and no enforcement on a Sunday; that people should do what they will on a Sunday and that we should not use the full weight of the criminal law against them. One cannot fool people with that approach.
The Minister did not reply to my noble friend's question concerning the cost of all this. He gives the impression that it will cost nothing because it will not be possible to enforce anything. However, the Association of County Councils thinks differently. It states that:
"The total additional cost to the trading standards service alone will be nearly £3½ million for the provision of little more than a skeleton service on Sundays. Add to this the cost of additional policing, of traffic and of shop-related crime,"—
and there would be a tremendous increase in crime—
"the extra cost to private industry of discontinuing the present practice of carrying out road blocks on Sunday and other aspects".
They know and I know, and all of us who are arguing this point know about the cost, but the Government do not acknowledge it. They seem to believe that they can introduce Sunday trading with no thought of enforcing, policing or costs. The Financial Memorandum is so ridiculous as to be comical. It is not I who say that but the Association of County Councils. I should have thought that the Minister would have paid a little regard to the fact that there will be extra costs.
In conclusion, I must say that in listening to the arguments put forward by my noble friend and others on the need for protection for small shopkeepers, I am amazed that it is people like me who have to stand up and defend small shopkeepers. I do not mind doing so because I am all in favour of the small shopkeeper. However, I thought the party opposite always boasted of being the party of the small shopkeeper. Yet they are taking steps annually, monthly, and in this case almost weekly, that will destroy the small shopkeeper. The one-stop store open seven days a week for all the hours that God sends will destroy the small shopkeeper. There is no doubt of that in the mind of anyone who understands the retail business. For a party that boasts that it protects small shopkeepers, I find its attitude very hollow.
I had hoped that the Minister would be able to accept some small principle, if it was only the need to write into the Bill whatever words he chooses—and his noble friend Lord Sandford could help him choose some words—to give the small shopkeeper a little more protection than he will otherwise have.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words before the noble Lord, Lord Graham,

725
responds. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, chided me for not responding in spirit to the noble Lord's amendment. That was rather the tone also of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, just now when he asked me to accept some small principle. We are here talking about two very different matters. As to the first, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, clearly fall on their technical merits, let alone any question of principle. I endeavoured to explain that point when I referred to the amendments. Even the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested that the amendments of his noble friend were not word perfect.
Let me say this. It has been alleged on several occasions over the past day or so that the Government are not prepared to listen to suggestions for amending the law short of total deregulation. The Government are listening, but the Government have not heard any alternative principle or concept that they have not already considered and rejected. The Auld Committee received evidence from 7,000 or so sources, many of which suggested various forms of partial deregulation. The Auld Committee listened, it considered, and it concluded that none was viable. After publication of the Auld Report, the Government received correspondence and representations, again with a number of suggestions for partial deregulation. The Government considered them carefully but again concluded that none was viable.
The Government have been listening very carefully for well over a year. That is why they are able to see so clearly the fundamental problems associated with partial deregulation. It is only fair for me to point that out to all those who, no doubt with the best will in the world, are trying to find a chink somewhere in this armour. I have dealt with those amendments on their merits. We have now returned to the issue of principle. That is all I can say except that I cannot advise the Committee to accept any of these amendments.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am very conscious of the words of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip earlier today that it was hoped that at about 7.30 this evening the proceedings on this Bill would be adjourned. However, I am sure the Committee will understand that I need to make a short response to the debate which has now gone on for 40 minutes.
The Minister kept telling us about demand and he quoted surveys. The figure of 61 per cent. has been mentioned in this and previous debates. The Minister should listen to the figures from a later survey. He spoke about 61 per cent. but that was a decline from a previous survey by the same organisation which gave a figure of 69 per cent. I have here an extract from a Gallup Poll conducted in Oxford Street last month and which was quoted on television. These are the questions and results of that survey. One question was:
"Do you want all shops to be allowed to open on a Sunday?"
That is, broadly, the gravamen of the debate. In reply, 54 per cent. agreed. But when people were asked whether they want this if it causes prices to rise, which we assert it will, only 21 per cent. said they did.
The next question asked whether they wanted Sunday opening if it leads to small shops closing down,
726
which we assert will happen, and only 24 per cent. agreed. I ask the Minister to take those figures on board. I assume that Oxford Street is one of those areas where this matter will be tested in a year or two's time. Another question was to ask which of certain changes would be of the greatest improvement to Oxford Street. Out of 100 per cent., Sunday opening managed to get only 13 per cent. Pedestrianisation—that is, to close most of the street to traffic—received 56 per cent. When people were asked about the options on how to improve the area—that is, what is to the benefit of the shopper in Oxford Street—those were the answers received.
I need to remind the Minister once again what this series of amendments is all about. I can accept almost without reservation that the detail of the four amendments is not acceptable because they are not well drawn or the principles of the amendments are not easy to apply. But the Minister is still saying to small and independent shopkeepers—in the main, those who supported his Government at the last election—that the Government can do nothing and intend to do nothing to stop the decline in the number of small, independent shops and shopkeepers and, in fact, will accelerate it. The Auld Report said that it anticipates that when complete deregulation takes place it will accelerate the decline in the small shopkeeper.
Lord Glenarthur: I really cannot allow the noble Lord to say either that there are examples elsewhere of small shops declining or that in some curious way the Government are letting down their supporters. On the first point, the fact is that the Swedish example, which we quoted more than once, is a very good example of exactly how small shopkeepers have been helped, despite the worst fears expressed. On the other matter, the fact remains that the Government are only suggesting that shopkeepers and shoppers should have the choice. I should have thought that is a far better way of dealing with the question of opinion polls which the noble Lord so readily produces.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Let me read these words to the noble Lord:
"Until May, I was Conservative leader on Ipswich borough council. I am a firm supporter of Mrs. Thatcher and her policies and I am the wife of a shop owner. I was saddened when our Government placed a three-line whip on this issue, and Mrs. Thatcher disappointed me as it is well known that she was, at one time, against lifting all restrictions on Sunday trading.
"I hold my views for varying reasons. As a wife and mother I know that my husband and his staff work very hard already with our shop open from 8 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on weekdays.
"He is in the meat trade, and there is a great deal of preparation".
The letter continues on those lines. Do not let the Government misunderstand the resentment which is felt in many quarters, which was not started by noble Lords on this side, as a result of what they consider is a betrayal by their Government of their interests as small shopkeepers and small traders.
As your Lordships know, I live in Enfield and the Secretary of the Chamber of Trade, Warwick Mowbray, who at one time was a parliamentary candidate, wrote to me:
"I myself took part in a discussion with Michael Portillo" —
the Member for Enfield, Southgate—

727
"where I spoke against the proposed legislation while he tried to defend it. There were 160 people in the hall—I think he had one on his side, maybe two … I cannot think why the Government is doing this—there is no great demand".
He adds that certainly the small shopkeepers do not want it. I understand the Minister is giving careful consideration to this. People see all around them their fellow small shopkeepers disappearing as a result of the enlargement of already large shops. They are asking what the Government are going to do to protect them.
The City of Sheffield and District Chamber of Trade—
Baroness Trumpington: Come on.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I will come on and just a little bit more slowly in view of the invitation.
The Earl of Onslow: Would it not be much more helpful—incidentally, I own a garden centre so I declare an interest—and more to the point if, instead of referring to what might happen in Sheffield, the noble Lord referred to what actually happened in Glasgow?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am sorry, I did not hear what the noble Earl said.
The Earl of Onslow: As opposed to what might happen in Enfield or Sheffield, would it not be better to say what actually happened in Glasgow, as it is much more to the point of this discussion?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I assume that the noble Earl was here yesterday when my noble friends Lord Galpern and Lord Ross of Marnock told us bluntly not only what is happening now but the trend and the consequences of what is happening in Glasgow.
I believe we have served our purpose well in having a canter over this particular course. Once more I am disappointed at the response of the Minister. The National Federation of Meat Traders and the National Association of Master Bakers have certainly told me that, as trades, they have tried to introduce individual shopkeepers but they are appalled at the inability of the Government to recognise the consequences of this measure as far as it affects their livelihood. I am very disappointed, but there are other stages of the Bill and I intend then to return to these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Davidson: I believe that we have now reached a suitable moment for taking a break in the Committee's proceedings for the time being. In moving that the House do now resume, I suggest that the House will not resolve itself into a Committee on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill before 8.30 p.m.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security (Contributions, Re-Rating) Order 1985
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-Rating) Order 1985 be agreed to.
With your Lordships' permission, I will also refer to the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1985. The report of the Government Actuary on the effect of the proposed changes was presented to Parliament by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 12th November. The draft order and the regulations taken together constitute the annual adjustments in national insurance contributions needed to ensure that there will be sufficient money in the National Insurance Fund to pay for the benefits and to maintain a margin for unexpected contingencies. Although this is a routine event in the social security calendar, it takes place against a far from routine background.
As your Lordships will be aware from my noble friend Lady Trumpington's Statement to this House, my right honourable friend yesterday published his White Paper on social security, reflecting the Government's considered proposals in the light of all the comments received on the Green Paper. Beyond saying that the structure of national insurance contributions will remain substantially the same, I do not propose to comment on the White Paper or to debate its other, far-reaching proposals tonight.
I cannot however avoid one important principle in the White Paper, nor would I wish to do so—that benefits have to be paid for. That is why we have this regular, annual exercise in good housekeeping which requires the Government to bring before Parliament their proposals for national insurance contribution rates and related matters for the forthcoming tax year.
I shall begin this brief account of the proposals by considering their effect on employers and employees. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that for the third successive year there is to be no change in the rate of Class 1 national insurance contributions. This is a considerable achievement, particularly in view of the 7 per cent. increase in main benefit rates effective from 25th November last which will add £2 billion to social security spending in a full year, bringing it to £41 billion. This freeze in contribution rates helps both employees and employers and reflects this Government's determination to keep the tax and contributions burden as low as possible.
Although the rates of Class 1 contributions remain constant, there are, as usual, changes in the lower and upper earnings limits. In carrying out these changes we are simply fulfilling the requirements laid down in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, which requires the lower earnings limit to be equal to or no more than 49p below the basic rate of retirement pension. A pension rate of £38.30 next year—representing a real increase in the value of retirement pension during the period in which this Government have been in office—points inevitably to a lower earnings limit of £38 a week.
The statutory requirements affecting the upper earnings limit, which now applies only to employees,

729
permit a little more discretion. It would have been possible to extend it to £287.25, but the figure of £285 that we have chosen represents a 7.5 per cent. increase on the current limit of £265, which is broadly the same as the general increase in the level of earnings. This maintains its relationship with the basic pension rate and is within the range of 6.5 to 7.5 times that limit—again, as laid down in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975.
This is the first annual rerating since the important changes in contribution structure announced in last April's Budget. As your Lordships know, we implemented these changes in the Social Security Act 1985 by introducing a graduated system of contribution rates. This substantially modified the cause of the "cliff edge" effect of the lower earnings limit. The new graduated rates, based on three bands of earnings for employees and four for employers, soften the previous sudden onset of full rate contributions once the lower earnings limit is reached. The purpose of this new system is to foster the creation of new jobs by reducing the cost of employing some 8·5 million workers and for the lowest paid in particular reducing employers' contributions by more than half.
We propose building upon this by increasing, under the terms of this order, the range of weekly earnings on which reduced rates of contributions will be payable. These are set out in the order. The effect of extending these reduced rates higher up the earnings scale means, for example, that an employer employing someone at £139 a week will have his employment costs reduced by over £2 a week. Similarly, for someone earning £94 a week his weekly take-home pay will be increased by £1·88 and his employer's costs reduced by a similar amount. Only employees earning between £265 and £285 per week have any significant change to their contributions, and there the maximum additional contribution will be £1·80 a week.
7.45 p.m.
So far I have dealt only with employers and employees. I should now like to turn to our proposals for the self-employed. As your Lordships will be aware, self-employed people pay their contributions in two parts: the flat-rate Class 2 contribution and the profits-related Class 4 contribution. Because we do not propose to increase the Class 1 rate for employees, it follows that no increase is needed in the Class 4 rate which is derived from it. The profits limit for Class 4 contributions rises automatically each year broadly in line with the earnings limit for Class 1 contributions. The figures proposed this year are £4,450 and £14,820, the latter figure being exactly 52 times the weekly upper earnings limit.
So far as the flat-rate Class 2 contribution is concerned, as a deliberate and positive incentive to small businesses we are continuing the large abatement given to self-employed people earlier in the year. Consequently, we propose only a modest increase of 25p a week in the contribution, making it £3·75 a week from next April.
The effect of these changes is that for the majority of self-employed people there will be an overall reduction in their contributions of £38·40 a year in 1986–87
730
compared with 1985–86. Only those earning above the upper profits limit of £14,820 will pay more, and then only a maximum of £27·12 a year.
The small earnings exemption from Class 2 liability also rises automatically—in this case from £1,925 a year to £2,075 a year.
Lastly, the proposed voluntary Class 3 contribution rate is, as usual, being set at 10p below the Class 2 rate, giving a figure of £3·65 a week from next April.
Your Lordships will have noticed that we are not this year proposing any change in the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund.
Finally, I turn to the effect on the national insurance fund of the changes we have proposed. The Government Actuary in his report estimates that the order and associated regulations that we are debating this evening will cause expenditure from the national insurance fund in 1986–87 to exceed income by £80 million. This will have only a very marginal effect on the working balance in the fund, which at the end of 1986–87 will stand at an estimated £4,755 million. This balance represents 20 per cent. of the estimated benefit expenditure during the year, which is still well above the prudent minimum balance of 16·7 per cent. recommended by the Government Actuary.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has considered these estimates and is satisfied that the changes we have proposed will maintain a proper working balance in the fund, consistent with advice from the Government Actuary, while at the same time reducing, wherever possible, the burden on employers, employees and the self-employed alike.
This leads me to end as I began, by stressing that the order and regulations are a matter of routine good housekeeping. We shall be paying out just under £24 billion from the national insurance fund in 1986–87—nearly £18 billion of it in retirement pension. The purpose of the annual rerating of contributions is always to ensure that there are sufficient funds to pay for those benefits.
We believe that the changes contained in the order and regulations provide this guarantee and place the minimum extra burden on contributors. In particular, we have sought in this rerating to maintain the real value of the new graduated contributed structure to lower paid people and their employers, in order to continue the encouragement to the vitally important growth in their employment prospects. Our aim with these proposals, which we think we can achieve, is to strike a balance between the protection of the national insurance fund, with the huge benefit calls upon it. and the protection of those who contribute to that fund. It is on that basis that I commend them to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Hooper.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sure we all want to thank the noble Baroness for what she herself described as a routine good housekeeping process. She has certainly succeeded so far as I am concerned in making the opaque almost translucent, though not quite. She was so right to remind the House that

731
benefits have to be paid for, and that is common ground between us.
We welcome the fact that Class 1 contributions are to be kept the same. It would have been quite wrong for them to have been increased. But I must point out that paragraph 10 of the Government Actuary's report refers to inflation and states:
"I have been asked to assume that the retail price index will be about 5½ per cent. higher in the final quarter of 1985 and the same level will hold for January 1986".
If inflation is taken into account, the lowest paid workers in Class 1 would not be better off. We have to look forward to making some connection between national insurance contributions and the rate of inflation. However, I assure the noble Baroness that I am not suggesting that we do that tonight. In the minds of most workers the national insurance contribution is not separated from PAYE. People talk about their "take-home pay" and look on both national insurance contributions and income tax deductions as something that the Government take away. The two have to be brought much closer together. As with pensions, there ought to be an ongoing consideration for inflation.
The noble Baroness said that the Government Actuary thought that it was prudent that the balance in the National Insurance Fund should be 16·6 per cent. Why is it now proposed to keep 21 per cent. in the fund? Can we not find further scope to reduce contributions so that the 16·6 per cent. is maintained instead of shifting the figure up to 21 per cent. and, I understand, to 20 per cent. next year? That is shifting the burden of taxation around in a quite unnecessary way. I wait to see what other changes in taxation can be brought about. Insurance contributions and income tax have to be looked at together and much more closely. I am glad that the Treasury supplement is not being reduced, but I wish that it was being raised. That is a much fairer way to provide benefits for those in the greatest need.
There are one or two points which I do not understand and which I am sure the noble Baroness does. Paragraph 13 of the Government's Actuary's report states:
"If the average number unemployed is 100,000 higher (lower) than has been assumed the surplus in 1986–87 will be £215 million lower (higher) than shown in table 2. If the actual increase in earnings in 1985–86 or 1986–87 is higher or lower than has been assumed, the 1986–87 surplus will be increased or decreased as shown in table 3".
I shall be interested if anyone can tell me what that means. The paragraph should go into the plain English competition, where Government departments have to try to explain what they mean.
My second question relates to unemployment. Appendix 3 states:
"The estimated outgo"—
that is the actuary's word and not mine; I do not think it is a very good one—
"of the National Insurance Fund 1985–86 on unemployment benefit is £1,597 million".
He estimates that for 1986–87 it will be £1,632 million. Does that increase suggest that the Government and the Government Actuary are presuming an increase in benefits to the unemployed—and I certainly should like to see an
732
increase in benefits for the long-term unemployed—or do they accept that unemployment will go up in the next year? There must be a reason for the actuary's estimate that more money will have to be paid in unemployment benefit.
I do not propose to go on about the self-employed or the other proposals in the order. We know that this is an annual business that we have to get through. We shall not make difficulties tonight. But we should ask the Government whether they feel it possible to relate inflation to contributions; what steps they are taking to connect contributions more closely to income tax; and why the estimate for unemployment benefit is to go up in the next year? With those queries, I inform the noble Baroness that we do not propose to divide the House or to do anything else to increase her difficulties tonight.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for her clear explanation of the contents of the order. As she says, there is not much change introduced this year. As she pointed out, there is no increase in the rates. She felt that that was creditable because there had been a 7 per cent. increase in prices. We have to bear in mind that contributions are linked to earnings and that earnings have been increasing faster than prices, so that we would anticipate a buoyant revenue.
The noble Baroness said that there was no further reduction in the Treasury supplement. I should hope not. It has been reduced from 18 per cent. to 9 per cent. of contributions during the lifetime of this Government. As she pointed out, the order consists mainly of adjustment of upper and lower limits and also deals with the flat rate self-employed contribution. That is done to take account of inflation. We have the reduced rates now for lower earners, and the limits with regard to those have been raised similarly. We debated the reduced rates in the summer when we had the social security legislation in front of us. We on these Benches agreed with the aim of the Government, but we suggested another way to achieve it which we felt would avoid the series of poverty traps.
The upper limit for employers was removed in order to pay for those lower rates. I should like to ask once again about the upper limit for employees. It always seems unfair that once a person is over the upper limit, national insurance contributions constitute a declining percentage of earnings as income increases. What we on these Benches would like to see is employers' contributions becoming a social security tax and employees' contributions becoming merged in income tax. With the removal of the upper limit for employers, I suppose that we could say that we are perhaps half-way towards that.
Looking at the Government Actuary's report, I observe that the assumption given to him is that earnings will continue to rise faster than prices. On page 6 of the Department of Health and Social Security document, Population, Pension Costs and Pensioners' Incomes, it shows how on similar assumptions and if pensions continue to be linked to prices, the basic pension will fall from 100 per cent. of the lower earnings limit in 1984–85 to 56 per cent. in the year 2025–26. Eventually the total pension, so the document says, would be largely composed of the

733
earnings-related pension. I wonder what government thinking is about that. The need to increase the real value of the basic pension is clear, and that is one reason why yesterday I regretted that there was no provision for doing that in the reform which was then announced. If pensions are not linked to earnings, then pensions must surely fall behind. The Government say, "Oh, but at some convenient point, we will increase pensions in order to give them an increase in real value." But they are going to do so at a suitable time. I wonder what would be the conditions of such a suitable time. At the moment earnings are increasing faster than prices. The Government clearly anticipate that this will continue. What will be the moment when it is thought right to increase the real value of the basic pension?
In the Government Actuary's report, there is reference to industrial action which apparently led to delays in the provision of some of the required statistical information. I should like to ask whether that industrial action has now resolved itself and also whether the Government wish to say anything further about the recent advertisement in the press indicating that the staff of the Department of Health and Social Security are worried that they are unable to cope with the amount of work that now falls upon them, particularly in view of the great increase in the number of those on supplementary benefit. Perhaps the noble Baroness can say something about the current position. Apart from those remarks, we on these Benches are content that approval should be given to the order.
8 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, until today there were only two facts about national insurance contributions of which I was at all certain. The first was that I had to pay them and, second, that, as in other matters whose complexity is legendary, your Lordships' House could proudly point to Members whose expertise is equally legendary. I should like to thank those experts who have made a contribution to this debate. I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, left me with three basic questions. She raised also a couple of points on the drafting of the actuary's report. I can perhaps start by saying that I endeavoured in my opening remarks to paraphrase and to simplify some of the terms that had been used.
The noble Baroness asked why we did not spend the balance of the national insurance fund. The reason is that the balance is necessary for working purposes. It is needed as a reserve against any unexpected increases in benefit expenditure or falls in contribution income and as an operating margin to fund the payment of benefits by the Post Office on time. It is estimated, as I said in opening, that at the end of the 1986–87 year the balance in the fund will be 20 per cent. of the year's benefit expenditure. This compares with the minimum recommended working balance in the actuary's report of 16·7 per cent. The difference would cover about one and a half weeks' benefit payments. So it certainly appears to the Government that it is a prudent precaution to hold this slightly higher level.
The noble Baroness also asked about blending national insurance contributions and tax contributions. I think that I should perhaps point out
734
again that national insurance contributions are not a tax. They earn benefit rights. This contributory principle has long been a cornerstone of the national insurance system. We have reaffirmed our support for this in the Green Paper. However, integration of tax and national insurance will be discussed in the forthcoming Green Paper on personal taxation. I feel sure therefore that the noble Baroness's comments will be taken into account on that occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked when the moment was going to come when we could expect an increase in the real value of pensions. I can only say to him that we must wait until we can afford it. He also asked why we did not abolish the upper earnings limit for employees, too. It was, I believe, explained in the Green Paper, in paragraph 11·7, why we are opposed to this. If I may quote, as I happen to have the appropriate section of the Green Paper before me, it states:
"Some may use this"—
that is the abolition of the employers' upper earnings limit
"to argue that the upper earnings limit for employees should also be abolished. But the circumstances are very different. Employers generally will gain more from the graduated rates of contribution than they lose from the upper earnings limit going; but there cannot be a similar trade-off for individual employees. We have made it clear that the high marginal tax rates which abolishing the upper earnings would create would make it unacceptable".
I am finding the same problems in reading this as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also referred to the question of staffing in DHSS offices. I believe that this has been raised recently in your Lordships' House both in question form and also yesterday in the course of replies to the Statement. The Government are certainly reviewing the position in respect of staffing requirements.
I apologise if I have not responded fully to the various individual points that have been raised. I can perhaps end by saying that the beleaguered taxpayer may gloomily suppose that paying money to the Government is not an end in itself. National insurance contributions are in fact a means to an end—the financing of a range of specific benefits. My right honourable friend's White Paper contains important proposals to ensure that the best possible benefits that the taxpayer and those paying contributions can reasonably afford are targeted where they are really needed. This Government have sought to contain and reduce the burden on wage earners.
The fact that, despite rising benefit expenditure, the draft order now before your Lordships holds contribution rates steady for a third year is evidence of our commitment. But the fact that only six months after the new reduced contribution rates came into effect the draft order extends further up the earnings scale the advantages they offer to employers and employees is also evidence of our wish to produce a more responsive and better targeted system. The draft order is not only the straightforward fulfilment of an annual routine to balance the books. It is also consistent with our aims to improve social security, and for these reasons I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.9 until 8.30 p.m.]

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 10 [Conditions]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 7, line 34, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: We come again to those stalwarts "may" and "shall". This is in relation to Clause 10 whereby conditions are to be imposed upon licences. Considering that subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the clause all say "shall" it seems to me that the clause gets away to a timid start by saying merely that a licence or certificate,
"may contain such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
If one has those qualifying words,
"as the Secretary of State thinks fit",
surely the Committee ought to be bold enough to insist upon "shall".
Let us suppose that the Secretary of State were to say—I cannot imagine him saying this, but under the subsection he could—"I think fit to impose certain conditions, but I am not going to because I do not have to since this provision says only that I 'may' if I think fit". That way would lie disaster for the welfare of the animals.
I submit that here of all places we need to say that if the Secretary of State thinks fit to impose conditions, he "shall" do so. I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: May I first of all say how much we miss the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, this evening and we look forward to his return to this Chamber in the new year.
In considering this amendment we should bear in mind the overall nature of the Bill. It is, as has been said elsewhere, essentially an enabling measure. The great part of the detail of the controls and their operation is to be spelt out elsewhere, notably in the Home Office guidance note. An important element of the controls will be the insertion of licence and certificate conditions. We have exceptionally included in Clause 10 a number of references to specific and very important standard licence or certificate conditions. We have done so in recognition of the importance which attaches to them, even though this is, as I have said, an enabling measure. However, this
736
amendment touches upon Clause 10(1), which provides the general power for the Secretary of State to insert licence or certificate conditions subject to the insertion of the specific conditions to which I have just referred.
Apart from these requirements, the Secretary of State has complete discretion. In the words of Clause 10(1) the licence or certificate,
"may contain such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
The word "may" is surely exactly right here. We shall indeed be inserting conditions in all licences and certificates, but these will be selected and tailored to the individual circumstances. That is conveyed by the existing wording. In our view the suggested insertion of the word "shall" in place of the word "may" would detract from this clarity of expression. This will not be of assistance to those who may have to interpret the Act and will not alter the administration of the Act.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept the draftsman's opinion and will not press his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I hope that it may be appreciated that when we are legislating as well as we can in an Act which will be understood by those who are interpreting it we have also to consider the general public. Looking at this they would assume that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to give an unconditional licence. If he only "may" do it, it is possible that he may not, in which case the licence would be unconditional. We would all agree that that would be unthinkable. We could not imagine that the Secretary of State would do this; nonetheless he may. It is very difficult to commend this Bill to people who are extremely suspicious about it unless we substitute "shall" for "may".
I hope that I have made it clear that I do not doubt the good will. I have good will towards the Bill as it stands. But there will be many people who will grossly misinterpret the word "may". They will assume that Parliament is legislating for the possibility of unconditional licensing. That I think would be a great pity.
Lord Prys-Davies: It appears to me that there cannot be an unconditional licence because if one has regard to Clause 10, one sees that it is subject to certain provisions. There are a minimum of two conditions set out in Clause 10(2)(a) and (b). It seems to me that the clause says that the Secretary of State may impose conditions additional to those in subsection (2)(a) and (b). Perhaps this is something the Minister can clarify.
Viscount Davidson: I think that your Lordships' Committee will appreciate that the general public can see for themselves that the Secretary of State always includes conditions. The conditions state that a person "shall". I think therefore that that covers the point raised by the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Airedale: I cannot believe that any confusion would be caused to anyone if subsection (1) stated that a,
"licence … shall contain such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit".

737
The "as thinks fit" part gives him his let out if he wants one. However, I do not want to prolong this any further. I think that the right reverend Prelate is quite right—that critics of people dealing with laboratory animals will pick on points such as this and say, "The Secretary of State does not even have to impose conditions, and you can see that in the subsection". Nevertheless, I had better read what has been said and consider whether or not to come back to this at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("a condition") and insert ("an inviolate termination condition").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. This part of Clause 10 contains the second set of conditions which all licences will have to contain. There is a history to Clause 10(2)(b) because in the second of the White Papers there was a reference to an inviolate termination condition. That reference in the White Paper was very warmly welcomed by many of those taking an interest in this legislation.
There is an equivalent condition at present imposed in licences that an animal must be painlessly killed if it is found to be suffering severe pain which is likely to endure. I think that it has been accepted by everyone that a condition of this kind would always be put in all licences. However, I think that there has been some concern that the wording of Clause 10(2)(b) does not make exactly clear that this is what the condition referred to in paragraph (b) will be about. The wording of Clause 10(2)(b) simply says:
"a condition specifying circumstances in which a protected animal",
and so on.
A number of people had assumed that the wording used in the White Paper would be rather more closely followed to make clear that Clause 10(2)(b) was a condition which would always be imposed and which could not be breached in any circumstances. I am no expert at drafting, but it does not seem to me that the present wording in Clause 10(2)(b) precisely meets the undertaking given in the White Paper, but of course I may be wrong about that. I beg to move.
Lord Adrian: It seems to me that this amendment is ill-chosen on two grounds. First, "inviolate" is not the same as "inviolable". I am sorry to make a donnish point in this respect, but "inviolate" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is defined as, "Not violated; unbroken"; whereas "inviolable" is defined as, "Not to be violated". Therefore, it should read, "an inviolable termination condition". However, if it did read in that way, it would seem to be tautologous to ask that an inviolable termination condition should be imposed when one is legislating a moment later for the consequences of not abiding by that condition. We are in a sense saying that all licences should have this condition because of the possibility that it might be broken. To say that it shall have an inviolable termination condition and then to go on to say what will happen if it is broken seems to me to be tautologous but perhaps that is a frivolous approach to this particular point.
738
I take the point—and it is a serious one—that all licences should have this condition. Whether or not one calls it an inviolable termination condition does not seem to me to be important in terms of what is on the face of the legislation. However, I think that the phrase,
"unless the Secretary of State considers that an exception is justified"
is important in this clause.
The Earl of Halsbury: Can we get quite clear who is supposed to be doing the violating? Is it the experimenter? If so, he is in breach of his licence condition and he is subject to the penalties fixed in the Bill in any case. Inserting the word "inviolate" does not add anything to the situation. Alternatively, does it mean that the grantor of the licence—the Secretary of State—may not vary the terms of the licence, once it has been granted, to meet various circumstances? I am entirely at one with my noble friend Lord Adrian and would go even further. I do not believe that this adds anything whatever to the drafting of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: I would find it difficult to go along with my noble friend's amendment. He invites the Committee to pin the label "inviolate termination" to the condition imposed by Clause 10(2)(b). However, there is nothing in the amendment or in any other amendment before the Committee which really defines the significance of the word "inviolate". There is nothing to suggest that a breach of the inviolate condition will lead to graver consequences than a breach of the condition imposed by Clause 10(2)(a). I would accept that the label underlines the importance of the condition. But it is not all that helpful either because by the same token it tends to attach less significance to Clause 10(2)(a). However, as I understand it, the two provisions have a parity of significance.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I have to say that I rather sympathise with the idea that lies behind the amendment. Various Members of your Lordships' Committee have been longing for me to sympathise all day long, and now when I stand up to sympathise I do not seem to have the support of anyone else! Let me simply say that I think that the idea of the noble Lord's amendment was to make it absolutely clear and beyond doubt that when Clause 10(2)(b) speaks of a condition in every personal licence:
"specifying circumstances in which a protected animal which is being or has been subjected to a regulated procedure must be immediately killed",
it means just that—a condition which may not be set aside for any reason whatever.
If an animal is suffering beyond a certain limit and there is no hope of alleviating the suffering it must—underlined—be killed regardless of the benefit or the importance of the procedure and regardless of whether or not its object has been achieved. A condition of that kind has been inserted in every relevant licence issued under the present law since 1912, following the recommendation of the Royal Commission which reported that year—and the relevant licences have been all licences except for those

739
which only permit work on animals under terminal anaesthesia.
A similar condition will be attached to all personal licences under the Bill, and that is what Clause 10(2)(b) is saying. It is referred to in paragraph 36 of the draft guidance note, and the suggested form of the condition itself is in Annexe C to the draft guidance note which lists the draft standard limitations and conditions in personal licences. Part B, Item 4, spells it out:
"In all circumstances where a licensee is aware that an animal is in severe pain or severe distress which cannot be alleviated, he will ensure that the animal is painlessly killed forthwith".
As I have said, the amendment strives to make Clause 10(2)(b) signal even more clearly the binding nature of the licence condition. I am certainly sympathetic to that aim, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will appreciate—and this was borne out by the other comments which were made, perhaps notably by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—that we shall certainly have to look very carefully at the implications that such a change would have for the Bill. We shall also consider bringing out the point more clearly in the guidance note.
I shall, therefore, look into the possibility of putting the point into the Bill at a later stage. Whether or not it should be "inviolable" or "inviolate" I shall leave to students of the English language, whose knowledge in that respect I must confess I cannot match. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord and, with the intention of looking at the matter, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: Yes, I shall do so, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his positive response. I am sorry that my use of a phrase from a Government White Paper and that the language of a Government White Paper led me into such trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I should have learned my lesson from last week, when I quoted from a DHSS publication and got into trouble. What the noble Lord has said is very welcome.
More seriously, as the noble Lord knows, this is a point to which a great many people attach great significance. It is seen as being a crucial part of the package which the Bill represents. There is some worry that, while it is covered very adequately in the guidelines, it is not covered as explicitly as it could be on the face of the Bill. I am sure that my amendment is not the way to do it, and I am very grateful to the Government for saying that they will look at the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 8, line 6, at end insert—
("(c) a condition prohibiting deliberate infliction of severe pain or distress.")
The noble Lord said: The thinking behind this amendment is that of the RSPCA and, incidentally, of Liberal Party policy. The RSPCA policy states that the RSPCA is opposed to all experiments or procedures which cause pain, suffering or distress.
Pain is at the centre of the whole argument that revolves around this Bill, and the Bill covers only those procedures which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. However, the Bill itself scarcely deals with the question of pain. It is on this amendment that I want to raise the ethical question, which is that which the RSPCA has taken aboard, as to whether in fact we are entitled to inflict pain on animals for our own welfare. I say that we are not. However, I realise that this is a package Bill and a Bill which, in its way, is a very considerable step forward from anything that we have had before.
Therefore, the amendment which I have tabled and which was also tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—and we now have our names joined to it on this Marshalled List—is a moderation of the RSPCA's position, and merely seeks to prohibit pain and distress when these are severe and deliberate. We definitely think that such a condition should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said, but I thought that one of the principles of the guidelines was that the severity of the pain would be matched by the importance of the project, which seemed to me to be a very important aspect of the Bill. I think that many people would agree that there are situations in which it is appropriate to inflict pain on animals if it is for the greater good of human beings, provided that there are the safeguards which we discussed on Second Reading.
However, it would greatly help me if there could be some explanation of the kind of circumstances or the frequency of circumstances in which it would be necessary to inflict severe pain on an animal without anaesthesia. In making up my mind about the noble Lord's amendment, I would find it very helpful to have some assistance in trying to resolve the particular matter which I have raised.
Lord Northfield: The only problem I see in this amendment is that what can start as a thoroughly approved experiment and treatment of an animal can provide unexpected results in terms of pain and distress. The start of that treatment of the animal, the start of the experiment, the start of whatever was happening in the project, was deliberate, and the project was deliberately licensed. I am slightly worried whether this would then catch a situation when the result, the outturn in terms of the degree of pain or distress, became worse than everybody expected and had a right to expect. The word "deliberate" would, as I see it, still apply because the experiment had started. In cases such as this I want to avoid a lot of criticism and litigation in relation to people who are doing their best and who have been caught by the circumstances.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am disturbed by this amendment because it can easily be construed to place an embargo on research dedicated to the nature of pain. One of course anaesthetises animals, but it may be that a particular condition would be inhibited by the presence of anaesthesia. I hope your Lordships will remember that a very large number of people involved in traffic accidents die on the way to hospital from what are called "multiple injuries". They pass into a

741
state of shock and, although not one of those injuries would be sufficient to cause death, the multiplication of these injuries could do so, and very often does.
A state of shock can also be induced by severe burning. Current research on burning, for instance, burns an animal under anaesthesia and it then recovers into a state of shock. It is extremely difficult to be at all sure that the animal really ever knows from beginning to end what has happened to it. However, I believe that this amendment as it stands would place an embargo on that sort of research and that, however well-intentioned it may be, the amendment should be rethought from this point of view.
Lord Adrian: It would also make it difficult for research to be carried out on a number of virus diseases which are endemic among humans—for example, hepatitis B, lasser fever and even AIDS. These are diseases which certainly cause severe distress in animals, but, in order to investigate them and their course in humans, it may be necessary to infect animals with them. In that case anaesthesia would be inappropriate. It may not specifically be a question of pain, but it could well be construed as severe distress. I would not wish to see this condition on the face of the Bill if it prevented that kind of research.
The Earl of Selkirk: My noble friend Lord Halsbury disturbs me. He thinks that the examination of pain is to be part and parcel of the medical examination which takes place in a laboratory. I very much hope that that is not the case. I very much hope that the Home Secretary would not regard the examination of pain as a proper matter to be examined in this way. This is the deliberate causing of pain, which I should have thought would in any case be against the rules of this Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said, in the course of examination it may be that a pain will arise which was not expected. I can understand that. That is not the deliberate causing of pain; it is quite different. The pain is incidental and accidental. I should have thought that there was quite a lot to be said for this amendment because, if you like, it puts a limitation on the freedom of the Home Secretary. The whole of this Bill depends on the judgment of the Home Secretary, and nothing else. This puts a definite limit on the freedom which the Home Secretary can have. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will consider this because it is not altogether a matter which should be left open. Many people dislike the idea that it should be permitted deliberately to inflict as much pain as one cares to.
Lord Airedale: Somewhere in the Bill an inspector is given power to have an animal killed at once if he is satisfied that it is suffering acutely. Unfortunately, the inspectors cannot be everywhere the whole time. I would be unhappy to think of an animal being in a condition in which an inspector, if he were present, would have it killed at once on grounds of mercy but the animal continues to suffer because an inspector does not happen to be present. I believe that that is what might happen in this matter.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and indeed with my noble friend Lord Selkirk, that we should exercise control over the infliction of severe pain or distress. But provision to do so is already contained in our new arrangements. Clause 10(2)(b) provides that the conditions of a personal licence shall include:
"a condition specifying circumstances in which a protected animal which is being or has been subjected to a regulation procedure must be immediately killed"—
That is a reference to the termination condition, details of which are set out in the standard personal licence conditions in the draft Home Office guidance notes, Annex C, Item B.4. This condition provides that where an animal is suffering severe pain or distress which cannot be alleviated, the personal licensee must ensure that it is painlessly killed forthwith.
9 p.m.
This goes wider than the deliberate infliction of severe pain or distress to which the amendment refers. It also encompasses the accidental infliction of this level of suffering. During the Second Reading debate on this Bill we discussed the fact that the Bill does not contain any attempt to describe levels of pain, levels of suffering and that sort of concept, because they cannot be defined with the necessary precision for an Act of Parliament. That is why the detailed arrangements for the termination condition, and also for the assessment of the severity banding of permissible procedures, are contained in the guidance notes.
While I understand the concern which lies behind this, I feel that these amendments would cut across those provisions and introduce into the Bill the concept of severe pain or distress which really cannot be quantified in a sufficiently accurate way to make sensible law. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham will be reassured if he examines the provisions in the guidance notes that I mentioned, and may I refer him particularly to paragraph 54 at page 19 where he will get further reassurance?
As for the real concern of my noble friend Lord Selkirk that pain should not have to be suffered other than unavoidably, he was really answered most succinctly by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. May I give another example which I hope will reassure him? Pain has to be examined—and again we come in to the question of how you describe and quantify pain—in order to develop newer and better anaesthetics. The reaction to a certain stimulus applied to you at a certain point during anaesthesia is a necessary way of discovering how well an anaesthetic works. The difficulty comes with going in legislation into the detail of precisely what that severe pain is.
I think that my noble friend will be reassured too when he reads the last part of the paragraph to which I referred the right reverend Prelate. It says in brackets at the end—and I am cutting this short—
"because of background knowledge of the material to be tested or because of termination of the procedure (which may involve killing the animal) at the onset of pre-determined signs of an adverse reaction in the animal."
The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, also brought out the question of disease. I think that too is relevant.

743
I assure the Committee that we are well aware of the difficulties which lie in this particular problem. They really are not solved by putting it into the Bill in the way the noble Lord suggests. Having studied the guidance notes I hope that he will feel reassured.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I have the feeling from this short debate that in fact the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I would go rather further than the Bill intends to go. But it has been an interesting and informative debate, and I think some of the references which have been quoted are matters which I, for one—and I daresay the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk agrees—would like to look at further. For my part, although I think this will be the first of my amendments which I may want to bring back at a later stage, nevertheless at this moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 8, line 8, after ("justified") insert ("but so that no exception may be made in the case of dogs and cats").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which deals with the use of cats and dogs. Under this part of Clause 10 it is possible for the Secretary of State to insist that animals used for the purposes of the Bill are supplied by a regulated establishment, but there can be exceptions made to that. My amendment would have the effect of not allowing the Secretary of State to make an exception in the case of cats and dogs. In other words, all cats and dogs used for experimental purposes in future would have to come from designated breeding and supplying establishments which are licensed under Clause 7 of the Bill.
I do not suggest this amendment because I believe that there are some grounds in terms of animal welfare so far as cats and dogs are concerned which do not apply to, for example, primates, but because of public concern. There is widespread public concern that dogs and cats which are lost are picked up off the street and subsequently supplied by unscrupulous dealers for use in scientific procedures.
One of the main reasons why the licensing procedure under Clause 7 is so welcome is that breeding and supplying establishments will now be under the control of the Home Secretary and that unscrupulous dealers should no longer be in operation at all. Of course in a perfect world the Act will work perfectly and all breeding and supplying establishments will be run by perfect people who obey the law in every respect. Unfortunately the real world does not work like that. There is a real fear among many people that it will still be possible, if dogs and cats can be supplied for purposes under the Bill other than from a licensed establishment, they will still be taken from the street or stolen and supplied in that way and that family pets will end up being experimented on.
I do not pretend at the moment that this happens in a large number of cases (although there is substantial concern) and I accept that under the Bill as drafted there will be a large amount of tightening up. But I think that that concern will still exist, and I still think
744
that the possibility of unscrupulous people taking pet animals which are lost and supplying them for experimental purposes will be there. If this amendment were made, that would no longer be possible. The possibilities would not arise and a great deal of public concern, some of it, I am sure, based on genuine cases, would be eliminated. For that reason the amendment should be welcomed by all those involved, whether on the scientific experimental and research side or the animal welfare side. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: This is a very important amendment, and I hope that the Minister will consider it in a favourable light. It is, as my noble friend Lord Melchett has said, important from the point of view of safeguarding the interests of stray dogs and cats. Though, as he said, it does not happen very often, it does happen that they have found their way to laboratories. Also it will contain the anxieties of our enormous pet-owning public. I can vouch for that anxiety because we have a spaniel puppy and my daughter takes her for a walk about twice a day to the local park, where she meets a club of mainly rather old ladies who also walk their dogs. It took only about two days of her taking the dog for a walk to come back with this horrifying story. She had been warned by the other dog owners that on no account should she let her puppy go because otherwise this dear little spaniel puppy would end up in a laboratory.
It is no good the Minister shaking his head, because the worry does exist. People are worried. The RSPCA is worried about this, and no one could call the RSPCA a violent, extreme group. This is a change that it would like to see being made in the Bill from the point of view both of protecting those few animals who have found their way to laboratories and, in particular, of removing that anxiety once and for all from all those (especially dog owners, but also cat owners) who feel that this is a possibility.
As it is felt that there is not an absolute prohibition in the Bill on the use of cats and dogs which are not bred for the purpose, then the amendment should be included.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, have voiced the concern which quite understandably many people feel about the source of animals used in experiments. The Government have always appreciated the need for the most rigorous control, which will provide the best reassurance that animals used in laboratories are obtained in a proper manner. That is why Clause 10 provides expressly for a condition to be attached to all project licences requiring the animals most commonly used in experiments, those listed in Schedule 2, to be obtained only from a breeding or supply establishment designated under the Bill, and thus subject to the Home Secretary's control.
There is, however, an exception provision, and I think this is what underlies the noble Lord's concern. The Secretary of State need not impose the condition if he considers an exception to be justified. This is where the noble Lord may feel there is a loophole, and that there is no reason to keep it open where dogs and cats are concerned. But there will undoubtedly be

745
some work which requires the use of a particular breed or strain of animal which cannot be obtained from any of the designated breeding or supplying establishments. I think that applies as much to dogs and cats as it does to other animals. I have seen examples where a strain of dog is being used because it has certain physical characteristics which would not normally be found in the ordinary experimental dog, and it would perhaps be unnecessary to have to go through the full panoply of organising a special breeding establishment just for the one-off creature. Thus it would be obtained in another way, and the Secretary of State would have the discretion to waive that usual requirement.
The source of all animals, however, will be very carefully controlled. All types of designated establishments, whether breeders, suppliers or users, will be required to keep the most detailed records of the source, use and disposal of all animals that come into their possession. This will make it impossible, even in the case of the categories of creature I have just described, to use a stolen or stray animal. I hope that will provide reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and her daughter. When I learned of it, it provided me with some reassurance, with one rather uncontrollable dog. The records will be open for inspection by the inspector, who will not hesitate to act if any irregularity is discovered. I hope that has given the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks.
Lord Melchett: I should like to ask the noble Lord just two questions. First, I have been told that there will he cases where a particular breed of dog is needed for an experiment. It might be an unusual dog—the example I was given was that of a collie—and that particular breed might not be available. There may possibly be no collies available from any of the establishments licensed under Clause 7. That is a limited kind of exception. If that was the only sort of exception made under this part of Clause 10, I think the worries would be considerably allayed.
But as the noble Lord will know there are some dogs, such as greyhounds which have finished their racing careers, for example, which are commonly made available for what would be regulated procedures under the Bill. If there was that sort of widespread use of a particular category of dog—not because of any special characteristics of the breed but simply because there were large numbers of animals available—and if exceptions were going to be made in those circumstances, I think my worries would remain.
So I am really asking the noble Lord this. Is this a typical example of the way the exception would be used or is it an exceptional example? In other words, would the exception clause in this part of the Bill only be used where there really was a specific need for a specific breed for a specific purpose, rather than on grounds that a lot of dogs were available from a particular source?
My second question is this. As I understood the noble Lord, he said that even where the exception was made there would still be a requirement for the person supplying the dog or cat—or any other species for that matter—to have kept these detailed records and for them to be available for inspection. I really just want
746
to clear that up in my own mind, and I apologise if I have not correctly followed what the noble Lord said.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord referred to collies. I cannot say that I have any direct knowledge of collies, but the kinds of breeds we are considering here are greyhounds, to which he expressly referred, and perhaps one or two other breeds from time to time. Greyhounds have a particular characteristic, to do with some of their metabolic functions, which makes them particularly suited to certain types of work.
I can assure the noble Lord that the source of all animals will be controlled in the way I described. As I understand it, there is no danger of discarded or lost creatures ending up as animals used in experiments at all. The whole subject is one which naturally arouses considerable emotion and I believe that the safeguards which are introduced by this measure, in regard both to the generalised matter of animals and to the specific breeds which may occasionally be needed, are safeguards of a kind which should commend themselves to the noble Lord.
The Earl of Selkirk: May I ask my noble friend this. If someone steals a dog and sells it to an establishment, does that in fact constitute an offence which can be dealt with under this Bill?
Lord Glenarthur: If he steals it, there is no way that the source can be carefully controlled, and I would have thought that point was answered by what I have just said.
The Earl of Selkirk: What I was getting at was this. Does the establishment commit an offence by buying a dog from a thief?
Lord Glenarthur: We are now delving into the realms of another aspect of the criminal law, and I rather suspect it does; but under what statute the offence would be committed I do not quite know. I will endeavour to find out and let my noble friend know.
Lord Northfield: I think this is covered in Annexe E of the guidance notes, where it says in paragraph 7 that the person who has an establishment shall make sure that there is a proper record of all the animals and where they come from.
The Earl of Halsbury: May I make two observations on this? A director of research who used dogs or cats without authenticating their origin would need his head examining. He would be in right trouble from the start, because of the sentiments we have about these favoured pet animals. So the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is, as it were, tormenting himself with a quite imaginary situation.
There is also another reason. You must keep your animals healthy. You do not use dogs except for long-term experiments and you cannot have a lot of scrubby dogs off the street infecting the dogs you have already got in your laboratories. As so often in this subject, the very nature of the subject always operates in favour of the animal rather than in favour of the unscrupulous experimenter. I do not actually think

747
there are any unscrupulous experimenters. They are on far too dependent terms with the inspectors to risk their entire careers by an act of folly.
We now come to missing dogs and cats. To the best of my knowledge and belief,—
Lord Melchett: If the noble Earl is going to leave that particular point, may I interrupt him because I thought that when the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, referred to greyhounds it was said that greyhounds were used for a very short-term purpose and that it was possible, and indeed common practice, for greyhounds which had finished their racing careers to be sold for experimental purposes and not for long-term use; that is as I understood it.
The Earl of Halsbury: I must leave the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on that point. I have only been associated with the use of dogs on long-term experiments.
As regards missing dogs and cats, to the best of my knowledge and belief, cats are stolen for their fur and they end up in the fur trade, not in the laboratory. Dogs are stolen for dog meat and they end up inside other dogs and not in a laboratory. That, on my honour, is what I believe to be the true state of criminality in this field and I do feel that animal lovers are tormenting themselves to some extent with fantasies attributable to an industry that does not operate in the way they think it does.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may come back on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, did not feel had been covered. May I, at the same time, also reassure my noble friend Lord Selkirk on the question of dogs being stolen and subsequently being used. That use evidently counts as handling stolen goods and would be prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968. On the question of greyhounds, and retired greyhounds at that, the noble Lord is right when he says that a greyhound retired from racing can be purchased for use in experiments, but the proviso is that the purchase must be lawful and the transaction has to be recorded.
I would also stress to the noble Lord the point which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that animals for experimental purposes have to be in very good health. I venture to suggest, without the detailed knowledge that the noble Earl has, that a greyhound retired from racing would not necessarily be in the sort of health which would lend it to experiments suitable for its age. I believe that the safeguards really are there.
Lord Melchett: The safeguards are there, with the exception which the Bill provides and which the Home Secretary will exercise, and I am afraid that I am not reassured. I was going a long way to being reassured by what the noble Lord said in his first answer to the amendment, when he gave, as an example of the way in which the exception would be used, a specific case. What he said was that there might be an experiment where a particular sort of dog was needed which was not available from a breeding or a supplying establishment. That would be a one-off example. But, as I understand it greyhounds are regularly used in experiments for particular purposes and that is why I imagine the noble Lord mentioned that breed. If they
748
are regularly used and there is a regular demand for them, it surely would become quite rapidly the case that a breeding and supplying establishment would be able to supply greyhounds. They might be more expensive than retired greyhounds, but, if there is a regular use for a particular species, surely this exceptional provision should not be used and they should be obtained from a breeding and supplying establishment licensed under the Bill. That is why I have become more concerned as the debate has gone on, rather than less.
The Earl of Halsbury: I do not want to take up too much time, but these retired working dogs very often suffer badly from arthritis—that is why they are retired—and they form valuable clinical material for study purposes. So a condition put into the Bill making it impossible to acquire them for study purposes would inhibit research into this scourge of later middle age, arthritis, or, in the case of younger people, rheumatoid arthritis.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord really invited me to go back to my earlier answer. I do not propose to go through it all again, but I want to stress to him the fact that there is a need from time to time, as I think he acknowledges, to acquire animals which are not bred in establishments of this type, because they are not bred regularly for this sort of work in the same way that certain other breeds of animal are. I went on to say that the source of all animals would be subject to the very strictest controls, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has given another technical reason to the noble Lord to indicate how an old and retired animal, but nevertheless a useful one, could be used for clinical experimentation which would lead to the advancement of science. The noble Lord must accept the fact that retired greyhounds are a certain source. There will, no doubt, be other sources as well.
I really do not see that there need be too much emotion wrapped up in this. It is very easy to build an emotive scene over it. These animals are looked after with the greatest possible care. I do not think that the noble Lord ought to feel for one minute that the safeguards which I have described and which the Bill provides, not only for those bred together in one establishment but for all the other animals, need leave him with the fear that animals of all sorts are being supplied willy-nilly to extraordinary experimenters who do not treat them in the kindest and most humane way. I do not think that he need feel this concern quite to the extent that he does.
Lord Melchett: I am afraid that I do. The concern is not about what happens to the retired greyhound. I do have that concern, but that is not the point of the amendment, as I said quite clearly in introducing it. The point of the amendment is to allay the public concern about what happens to pet animals, dogs and cats, which are stolen. I followed the noble Lord's argument very carefully. As I see it, the Bill provides considerable safeguards against that which would go a very long way, if not all the way, to allaying that public concern, but with this exception in the second line of subection (3).
Lord Glenarthur: I do not want to get up and down too often on this, but the noble Lord has just been explaining to me his concerns about greyhounds being provided from racing establishments. He now tells me that his real concern is because they are stolen. This is something about which I hoped I had given a reassuring answer to my noble friend Lord Selkirk.
Lord Melchett: I was coming to the point on which the noble Lord has intervened. I am sorry if I am taking some time about it. My concern is that if the exception in subsection (3) is going to be exercised quite broadly—for example, to allow the existing trade in retired greyhounds, which would be a very wide exception as I understand it, and which would involve large numbers of dogs for routine procedures for which greyhounds are routinely used—it does not seem that that amounts to an exceptional use of a particular species for a particular purpose, but to a very general exception for a category of dog for routine procedures which go on regularly. If the exception is going to be exercised in that broad way in the case of greyhounds—we have hit upon that example, but it is only an example—I do not think this part of Clause 10 will serve to allay the genuine public concern. That is why I pursued the point about greyhounds and what happens to them.
If the noble Lord had been right in the first case and said that this exception in the second line will be exercised only very occasionally for particular dogs—as it were, individual animals—that would allay the public concern, but if it is going to be exercised for broad categories of animals I do not think it will. I think the concern will remain, and I think it will be right that the concern remains. After all, the noble Lord says that if they are stolen we shall be able to find out, but the noble Lord knows that it is not that easy to prove that somebody has stolen a dog, particularly if it has ended up being experimented on, even by kind experimenters, because the evidence is unlikely to be available. There is the problem of tracing the source of ownership, if there is no marking on the dog and no way of proving the dog did or did not belong to somebody. It is possible to have somebody who has the dog who can produce another witness who swears that they sold it to him, and so on.
I do not think the law is quite as easily enforceable in these cases as the noble Lord is suggesting, particularly if, as is widely suspected, the offences are committed by people who are breeding and keeping some dogs or cats but are also supplementing their supply by stealing some others. In those cases it becomes almost impossible except in very rare cases to prove the origin of the animal.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think I can go over all the ground again, but I hope the noble Lord realises that the special use of greyhounds will in future have to be justified by reasons. That seems to me the very nature of the kind of licences that we are talking about. They are not used very extensively, but there are certain procedures for which they are the ideal animal, or as near as one can get to the ideal animal, upon which to work.
I do not think I can develop the theme any longer. If anybody is building up concern I think the noble
750
Lord is generating it himself within his own mind. I appreciate that he feels it very strongly, but I believe quite genuinely, as do all the experts who deal in this field, that there is not the risk. I wish to reassure the noble Lord and all those members of the public who no doubt are concerned that dogs can find themselves being experimented upon in this way that the most rigorous controls will apply but that to have a special establishment just for the occasional dog, or rather more than the occasional dog, as the noble Lord describes, is not really a proper way to approach the matter.
If the noble Lord thinks that forgery of records would be a problem, I do not think one can imagine that this amendment would help. The noble Lord has not raised that point, but is it certainly one that concerns some people. I simply leave him with the thought that all types of designated establishments—whether breeders, suppliers or users—will be required to keep the most detailed records. I hope that he is reassured by that.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I shall not prolong this debate, and I shall be withdrawing the amendment. However, I want to make a couple of remarks before I do so because I am still not satisfied.
As to the keeping of records, there has been extensive experience under protection of birds Acts as to the efficacy of record keeping by breeders who are also involved in the theft of young birds from the wild—falcons in particular. After many years' experience it has been found that it is only by close ringing of chicks, using a ring that cannot be removed and which cannot be put on long after birth, that it is possible to go even some way to enforcing the law against taking protected birds from the wild.
That kind of marking is not of course feasible in the case of dogs and cats. Unless every breeding establishment is inspected as and when puppies and kittens are born, I do not believe that it will be possible to devise an effective record-keeping system. I know that records will be kept and inspected, but I do not accept that they will do the job.
The second point I want to make—and I hope it is a more constructive one—is that it would help if at some point the Government found it possible, in the guidelines or elsewhere, to declare the grounds on which they would consider exercising this particular exception. The noble Lord has said that there will be particular cases where specific breeds of dogs or cats are needed. However, it would help if the Government added to that the condition that it should be unrealistic to expect a licensed breeding and supplying establishement to meet that need. If such was added it would go a long way to meet the concern that has been expressed.
The noble Lord the Minister has said that I am working myself up about this. With respect, I do not think that is fair comment. I have not gone into a number of notorious cases where establishments have been found to have been supplied with stolen pets. Such things have happened. Cases have been taken to court where that has been shown. Therefore, the concern that is felt is based on actual evidence and not

751
simply on what my noble friend's niece has been told by other dog owners. I will leave it at that. We shall have to return to this point at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 8, line 15 after ("knowledge") insert ("then provided such tasks are not liable to cause any animal any pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to subsection (4). which deals with conditions of personal licences. It recognises that there must be assistants working upon non-technical tasks under the direction of the licence holder but not necessarily in his presence, because it does not state "in his presence". Presumably the subsection recognises that a researcher is a better researcher if he has time off, like other people, and goes to play a round of golf, if that is his fancy, leaving the laboratory in the charge of his assistants.
All this amendment does is to spell out in the Bill, as I believe it should be spelt out, that the tasks performed by the assistants, particularly in the absence of the licence holder, must not be tasks that are liable to cause any animal pain or suffering, and so on. That is important and it ought to be included in the subsection. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: I wonder how this provision works in with paragraph 13 of the code, where it states that there will be a new sort of chap who, so far as I know, is not mentioned in the statute as such. But it states:
"if the assistant carries out, under the personal licensee's direction and if they are authorised by the personal licence, subordinate duties permitted".
Is this an additional licence which assistants are getting? There is no reference in the Bill dealing with this as far as I know. I wonder whether this is a subordinate licence which it is intended that the Home Secretary should issue to certain people. I should be interested to know whether that is so because this may be a useful career for certain types of laboratory assistant. Is it intended to formalise it in some way?
Lord Northfield: I suggest that this amendment goes much too far. Annexe B to the guidelines sets out the work which may be done by assistants, but much of it would be prevented by the words in this amendment. The assistant would be prevented from doing a great deal of it. That is the real danger. The amendment does not say,
"liable to cause the animal any severe pain".
It says "any pain" or "distress".
The work of an assistant in preparing an animal for an operation will cause it distress, and that is obviously work which is done by an assistant. Handling the animal and preparing it for whatever experiment is intended will cause it distress. That is inevitable. It is not possible to have words like "any distress" governing the work of an assistant.
Again, referring to the guidelines in Annexe B and some of the things listed there, even under anaesthesia one does not know quite what is happening. In any
752
case, in many of these tasks set out in Annexe B it is impossible to assess what the reaction of the animal may be. The moment any of these reasonably harmless processes set out in Annexe B causes any distress it is against the law. I suggest that the noble Lord has gone much too far in his amendment, as it would make the use of assistants impossible.
Lord Glenarthur: Clause 10(4) of the Bill provides for the use, under tight control, of assistants to carry out a number of commonplace non-technical tasks in support of personal licensees. To help my noble friend Lord Selkirk, perhaps I may add that these assistants are authorised by the personal licence of the personal licence holder under clause 10(4).
The Government consider that the use of assistants in the manner envisaged in this clause will be an important and useful practice. The precise tasks which may be carried out are set out in Annexe B of the draft Home Office guidance note. I believe that it is important to the discussion of this amendment that the nature of these tasks should be made plain. I know that I should not take up too much of your Lordships' time but perhaps I may just detail them. It is important and it might provide the reassurance which both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, seek. They are as follows.
Acting in accordance with precise and specific instructions from a suitably authorised personal licence holder, who must remain within reach for assistance or advice if required: (i) offering of a diet of altered constitution; (ii) exposure to an environment (aquatic or atmospheric as appropriate to the species) of altered constitution; and (iii) administration of test substances by admixture with feed or drinking water. The list goes on to pairing, operating machinery, and so on. It then continues in (viii) and (ix) to describe how, in the presence of a suitably authorised personal licence holder, in animals under general anaesthesia which is to persist until death, the assistance may administer a test substance or withdraw blood through an established intravenous catheter; and, at a surgical operation carried out by a personal licence holder, render routine assistance with skin toilet, control of haemorrhage, hold retractors or carry out other equivalent duties.
To complement these details I should say that paragraph 13 of the draft guidance note describes the circumstances in which such tasks may be carried out by assistants. The use of assistants by a personal licence holder will have to be specifically authorised by his personal licence, as I have said, and where assistants are used the responsibilities of the personal licensee will be in no way reduced. Furthermore, the personal licensee will have to maintain close supervision of the work which is done by his assistants.
The use of assistants to carry out subaltern duties has been permitted for some time now. The provisions of Clause 10(4) of the Bill, allied with the relevant sections of the guidance notes, will provide valuable clarification and control, a much needed and sensible arrangement. The task which assistants will be able to carry out are simple. They are non-technical tasks and do not require anything like the expertise of a personal licensee. I think that those tasks which I have read out set that out quite clearly. Only licensees who are

753
judged suitable to arrange and supervise work to be done by assistants will be allowed to do so.
The effect of the amendment will be to limit the scope for employment of a great many assistants, which I think is a very real concern. I believe that the proposed arrangement as set out in the Bill and in these guidance notes provides a sensible balance between the use of less skilled personnel to carry out less demanding tasks and the need for control and supervision to safeguard the animals involved. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured. I really believe that it would be severely tightening the constraints under which people should operate in these experiments, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Airedale: I know that the Minister always does his best and listens with great sympathy to these amendments. My noble friend Lord Beaumont is in trouble with the Minister for having spoken about severe pain. I get into trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for talking about any pain. It is difficult to win.
I thought I had taken down these words from another part of the Bill. I must say I had thought—and I am sure that many people outside must think—that the tasks to be performed by assistants not requiring technical knowledge meant routine tasks, such as cleaning the cages, cleaning the floor and switching the heating on and off, and that sort of thing.
Lord Northfield: Oh no, no.
Lord Airedale: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, does not agree with this and he will be able to make another speech about it if he so wishes, but that is what I supposed and that is what I imagined people outside would suppose. I imagined also that they would suppose that these routine tasks ought not, in the absence of the personal licence holder, ever to be tasks liable to cause any animal any pain or suffering because that must only be done under the direction and in the presence of the licence holder. That is what I supposed. But I shall go away and think about this matter and perhaps come back with an amendment on these lines, including perhaps the words "except in the presence of the licence holder". I think that the Minister wants to say another word.
Lord Glenarthur: I was trying to find a way of helping the noble Lord a little further. He has expressed his understanding of the Bill, thinking that assistants were the sort of people who cleaned out cages and so on, but it goes much wider than that. As I have said, the work is described in the guidance notes. There is something which I can undertake to do, if it would help the noble Lord, and that is to examine carefully what appears in the guidance notes and to see whether there is any scope for tightening this point up. I do not really feel that it can be put on the face of the Bill, but I willingly agree to look at the guidance notes further.
Lord Melchett: In reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, if he looks at what is said in the guidance notes he may find that in some respects this is more restrictive than the effect of his amendment would be. I should have thought that what the noble Lord has just said would be by far the best way of dealing with the concern which he feels.
The Earl of Halsbury: If the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is to reconsider the wording, will he take a look at the double usage of the word "any" in "any animal any pain"? Different species of animals are differentially subject to different pains in different parts of their body. It could be construed that if one found a species such that a given task caused it pain, one could not perform the same task on an animal of another species which did not cause it pain.
Lord Airedale: We had a lot of discussion on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill about what ought to go in the Bill and what ought to go in the guidelines. We are to discuss another amendment this evening on the Bill versus the guidelines. I accept the Minister's kind undertaking to have a look at the guidelines to see whether he is satisfied that what I am here seeking is dealt with in the guidelines, or, if not, can be dealt with by amending them, and, if not, he will accept my amendment—which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, still does not like and continues to mutter about, while not venturing to make a further speech. Having said all that, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Variation and revocation]:
9.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51:
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: On the sheet of groupings which some of your Lordships will have, Amendment No. 51 has been grouped together with Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 67, 68 and 70. Although there might be a case for separating the first three from the last three, I think that it probably would be for the benefit of the Committee and contribute to the brevity of our proceedings if we discussed them together because they all deal with the code of practice.
Amendment No. 52: Page 8, line 39, leave out ("or").
Amendment No. 53: Page 8, line 40, after ("holder") insert ("or (d) upon breach of a provision of a code of practice as specified in section 21.").
Amendment No. 67: Clause 21, page 14, line 3, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
Amendment No. 68: Page 14, line 5, leave out from ("and") to end and insert—
("which shall be subject to affirmative resolution in each House of Parliament. A breach of a code of practice shall be a ground for the variation or revocation of a licence or certificate under this Act.").
Amendment No. 70: Page 14, line 10, leave out ("or codes issued or approved").
Having said that I propose to argue the case for those amendments on Amendment No. 52, and I do not propose to move Amendment No. 51.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 52:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: As I said, these five amendments have to do with the code of practice. That code has not yet been published and is not identical with the draft guidance. The first two amendments, Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, have the effect of making a breach of the code of practice one of the grounds on which,
"A licence or certificate under this Act may be varied or revoked by the Secretary of State.".
That is simple and speaks for itself.
Amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 70 have the following effect on the codes of practice. They mean that the Secretary of State has a duty rather than a discretion to issue such codes of practice as to the care of animals used under the Bill. I should have thought that it is absolutely right that they should be published. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept that. They mean also that the Secretary of State is denied the discretion of merely approving codes of practice issued by other persons. Finally, they mean that the codes of practice will be subject to the safeguard of affirmative resolution of both Houses. Currently the Bill gives no legal standing to those codes of practice and they could be changed or abandoned at any time by the Secretary of State without the approval of Parliament. That is unsatisfactory. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: If we are to speak to Amendment No. 67, it might be sensible to take Amendment No. 65 at the same time. The noble Lord did not mention it, but it covers much the same point. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, appears to be happy with that.
Amendment No. 65: Clause 21, page 13, line 41, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
I have my name to Amendment No. 67 and I strongly support it. I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, except to stress the enormous importance of the codes of practice, which is already evident from our discussions during this Committee stage.
My further amendment, Amendment No. 65, would make it compulsory on the Secretary of State to publish information to serve as guidance with respect to the manner in which he proposes to exercise his power to grant licences and certificates. I am sure, once again, that the Secretary of State will actually publish such guidance. It is difficult to see how the procedures under the Bill could operate if he did not. I hope that making it clear that this is a necessity will not cause any problems with the Government.
The only forceful argument I can see in favour of making it an absolute condition is simply to remove any suspicion that there might be informal and secret guidance given to those applying for licences that was not made generally available to the public. I cannot see that happening, and I know that the Government do not intend it to happen, but that would be a potential danger that changing "may" to "shall" at the beginning of Clause 21 would overcome.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I gather that it is right to speak on Amendment No. 67 at this point. I understood the Minister to say at Second Reading that the Bill must be understood in connection with the guidelines that will become codes of practice. It will be difficult for the public if they have the Bill but do not necessarily have the codes of practice. I would have thought that it was really appropriate that they should have both. I cannot see what would be lost by accepting Amendment No. 67. It would certainly allay doubts in the minds of critics. I cannot see, on the other hand, that those who work this Bill (or Act, as it will become) will lose anything by allowing the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: We are discussing now a group of changes designed to alter the provisions in Clause 21 relating to codes of practice and to insert in Clause 11 a requirement to vary or revoke the licences or certificates of those who breach such codes of practice. I can perhaps first deal with—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: No. I did not move Amendment No. 51, which would require the Secretary of State to revoke or alter. I did not move that. I am afraid that the Minister's brief is slightly impaired as a result.
Lord Glenarthur: It is not too seriously impaired because I can leave out reference to that amendment and go on to the second or third amendment. I can perhaps pick up the right reverend Prelate's point about the codes of practice. As I understand it, they will be available for the public should they need them. I must confess that at this moment I am not clear in what way they will be available. They are at the moment in the discussion stage. They will be amended, no doubt, as a result of discussion on this Bill, and also because we are actively seeking comments upon them.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My feelings are not wholly allayed. If they will be issued, why can we not say in the Bill that they "shall" be issued? I do not really see the point that the Minister makes. If they will be available, presumably they will be issued. Why can we not say, therefore, that they "shall" be issued, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, wants in Amendment No. 67?
Lord Glenarthur: I should like, if I may, to come to Amendment No. 67 specifically in due course. Perhaps, then, I shall be able to make more encouraging noises to the right reverend Prelate. I was trying perhaps to jump ahead when I should not have done. The second and third amendments, Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, attempt to insert in Clause 11 a reference to breach of a provision in a code of practice under Clause 21. I hope that I have it right this time. Such eventualities are already catered for by Clause 11(b), which provides for variation or revocation (and I quote):
"in any other case in which it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to do so".
I hope that this will satisfy the noble Lord.
I can now turn, perhaps, to the related amendments to Clause 21, Amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 70. As in Clause 11, Amendment No. 67 replaces the word "may" by "shall". I have to say that I believe that a change of this sort would be undesirable. The Secretary of State should retain discretion to issue codes of practice, although I can confirm that it is our intention to ensure that a code of practice is made available. The codes will be available when published, before the Bill becomes an Act, and they can be obtained in the same way as the Bill, no doubt. I think the right reverend Prelate is still not convinced.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I should be happier if the noble Lord the Minister could tell me why the Secretary of State should retain his discretion not to publish codes of practice.
Lord Glenarthur: The right reverend Prelate referred me particularly to Amendment No. 67. But in the case of Amendment No. 67 the need to say that he "shall" publish would mean that the discretion of the Secretary of State to publish would be removed. At the same time, however, I explained to the right reverend Prelate that it is our firm intention to ensure that a code of practice is made available. The word "shall" is inappropriate in a situation where the Secretary of State has discretion as to the number and nature of the codes of practice to be issued.
758
I accept that this is a rather fine point of the draftsman. It is rather akin to the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, with which my noble friend Lord Davidson dealt. We are dealing with the—I hesitate to use the word "semantics" of the draftsman because I think that there is a real point behind it. I hope that I have been able to explain to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that it is our firm intention to ensure that a code of practice is made available. But it would be technically wrong to do it in the way that the right reverend Prelate wishes.
The remaining amendments to Clause 21, Amendments Nos. 68 and 70, remove the power of the Secretary of State to approve codes of practice issued by other persons. I am not sure whether this was intentional, but we regard it as very deleterious. For example, it has been our hope that when the Royal Society's code of practice is drawn up we shall be able to approve it for issue to licensees. The same amendments also require that the issue of codes of practice is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and that breach of a code shall be grounds for variation or revocation of a licence or certificate.
Here again, we are confronted with a proposed change which goes against the spirit of the Bill and would cause great practical difficulties. The codes of practice which may be issued or approved will not be rigid rules to be followed slavishly. They will be a guide to good practice and a guide that can be adapted to fit the individual circumstances of work which will no doubt crop up.
Given the great variety of situations and ways in which animals are used for scientific or experimental purposes this could not be otherwise. And, in view of this, it would be completely wrong for a breach of a code to be automatic grounds for variation or revocation.
In addition, we envisage that codes of practice will be amended regularly to incorporate just the kinds of new ideas which—thank goodness—spring up regularly and adapt to the changing circumstances which we all want to see as science advances. To require every such change to be made through an order in Parliament would be to impose a wholly unwelcome and unnecessary burden upon your Lordships' House and, indeed, another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, spoke on Amendment No. 65. Here I have to say to the noble Lord that the situation is rather different and I think that I can be rather more encouraging. We firmly intend to issue guidance of the kind described in Clause 21(1). The circulation of the draft Home Office guidance note is evidence of that intent. The word "may", which is contained in Clause 21(1), adequately covers the point, but we are happy to accept the noble Lord's suggestion that it should be changed to "shall".
I am sorry that I am unable to help the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, any further. I hope that I have been able to reassure the right reverend Prelate and that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: As regards Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, I am to a certain extent

759
reassured by the fact that the Minister says that the point is covered by Clause 11(b). I have not heard any good reason why Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 should not be inserted as well. It seems to me that it would be reassuring to people and good for the public relations of the Bill—to put it at its very lowest—if those amendments were included.
However, I shall certainly not take the matter any further tonight and shall seek leave to withdraw those two amendments. However, at the same time, I ask the Minister—I do not ask him for an answer now—and his advisers to look at the matter again and maybe come to the conclusion that no harm would be done and maybe a little good would be done if the clause were amended in the way in which I have suggested.
I move on to Amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 70. I take the argument about the changes of the code of practice and, therefore, the undesirability of having it subject to affirmative resolution. I shall certainly not move those amendments when we come to them.
However, as regards Amendment No. 67, I am delighted that the noble Lord the Minister has accepted Lord Melchett's Amendment No. 65. I am totally baffled by the technicality which apparently stops him accepting my Amendment No. 67. I should like to reserve my position on that matter and to ask the noble Lord if he will write to me rather more fully on the point raised by Amendment No. 67.
Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 52.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Re-use of protected animals]:
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert ("except where the further procedure is one in which the animal is subject throughout to general anaesthesia from which it is not allowed to recover,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is very limited, and I hope that we can deal with it relatively rapidly. The amendment concerns one special case of re-use. Clause 14(1) states that:
"Where a protected animal—

(a) has been subjected to a series of regulated procedures for any purpose; and

(b) has been given a general anaesthetic for any of those procedures and allowed to recover consciousness,

it shall not be used for any further regulated procedures".
My amendment seeks to amend the last part of that provision by saying:
"it shall not be used for any further regulated procedures except where the further procedure is one in which the animal is subject throughout to general anaesthesia from which it is not allowed to recover".
As the Bill is now worded, it would prevent the re-use of an animal which had to be put down and one could not use it for a terminal experiment; that is, a procedure involving anaesthesia from which the animal does not recover. From the animal's point of view, to be subjected to a terminal experiment of that kind seems to me—and one profoundly hopes that it
760
seems to the animal—to be exactly the same as one of the more humane methods of killing that animal; that is, giving it an anaesthetic with the dose being increased until the animal dies. Therefore, from the animal's point of view there is really no difference between its being used in a terminal experiment and being killed humanely by an excess of anaesthesia.
As it now stands, I believe that Clause 14(1) is potentially wasteful of animals if a terminal experiment is required to be carried out on an animal which has to be put down. This perhaps will not make a very large difference in animals and it may not be of major importance when dealing with many laboratory animals, such as rodents, though, if my amendment is allowed, it will reduce numbers.
However, I believe that on rare occasions, particularly when primates are used, if one has to be put down it would be wasteful not to obtain the maximum information from it, subject of course to the usual limitations of appropriate project licences justified to and granted by the Secretary of State. It appears to me to be an unnecessary limitation on the Secretary of State's discretion, and I suggest that it would be better to allow this exception and to indicate, in guidelines, the kind of circumstances in which this re-use might be allowed by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: I merely point out that this is covered by the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Vertebrate Animals, which the British Government support. Article 11(4)(a) uses almost the same words as are used in the noble Lord's amendment:
"except where the further procedure is one in which the animal is subject throughout to general anaesthesia from which it is not allowed to recover".
That is fully in line with the Council of Europe convention to which we are a signatory.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, can reassure me about one point. As his amendment now stands, it seems to me possible that an animal might be kept under general anaesthesia for some time for a further project, and I believe that this would be repugnant to many of our ethical senses. I believe that an animal should be treated with respect and not be kept under general anaesthesia in that situation for a long time. I should like some reassurance as to what is intended by this addition to the Bill.
Lord Melchett: I should like to make one other point about this which worries me, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, could give me some advice. As I understand the effect of the amendment, if it is passed it would be possible for an animal, subject to a series of regulated procedures, then to be kept in a laboratory for some considerable period of time, perhaps even for a period of years, before the final experiment, subject to anaesthesia and termination which would be allowed by this amendment, was proceeded with. If I am right about that, it is a rather more dramatic change from the animal's point of view than I think the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Adrian: I had not directly considered the point about length of time. Some experiments under

761
anaesthesia go on for some considerable time, but presumably operations on humans go on for some considerable time, and the length of time of an operation is not particularly distressing if the anaesthesia is correctly applied. Most terminal experiments would be relatively brief, but undoubtedly they would be a little longer than the anaesthesia used to kill an animal humanely. That is certainly true. However, from the animal's point of view, I do not believe that this would be different.
As I understand it this Bill is essentially based on pain, distress, suffering and lasting harm, and the issue of the length of time that the animal is under anaesthesia is not something dealt with in the Bill at all.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: May I explain to the Committee what I had in mind? I thought it might be possible that an animal was kept under anaesthesia for a week or so during a terminal experiment. When the noble Lord says "a longish time", I wonder whether he can be more explicit?
Lord Adrian: An hour, or hours; conceivably 24 hours, but not longer than that so far as I know. It would not be longer than the ordinary kind of terminal experiment to which animals are subject, anyway. From the point of view of Lord Melchett's question about keeping, they would, if kept, be subject to just the same kind of regulations as they are when kept in a laboratory before being experimented on or before being subjected to a series of procedures.
Lord McGregor of Durris: The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has assured the Committee that the clause as it stands will result in waste. The waste will not in any way promote the objects of the Bill. Waste in this area is to be deplored. In the University of London alone the capital cost of this Bill—and this is a hard figure—will be £4 million, and I reckon that the total cost for the country within universities will be about £10 million. That is the capital cost alone, to say nothing of the recurring costs of buying unnecessary animals whose additional purchase and additional use in laboratories will add nothing to the objectives of the Bill. The Minister has been so reasonable and so balanced in his judgments in discussions of the amendments that I wish to ask him whether he will reconsider this particular clause and look with some blessing on this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: If Lord Adrian's amendment is accepted, the re-use of animals that we are talking about will be permitted but only once under terminal anaesthesia, and so far as the time is concerned I rather hope that the right reverend Prelate was reassured by what the noble Lord said.
Clause 14(1) was inserted in the Bill in fulfilment of the commitment given in this year's White Paper Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. The Government had earlier proposed that there should be permitted limited re-use of animals which had been given in anaesthetic and allowed to recover consciousness. That proposal in the 1983 White Paper was unfortunately widely misunderstood, and we have therefore decided to adopt the policy outlined in the second White Paper.
762
The present position under the 1876 Act is that there is a statutory requirement for animals which have been given a general anaesthetic, and allowed to recover consciousness, to be killed at the end of the experiment. This is clearly wasteful of animal life—as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, suggested—and because of the requirement many healthy animals are killed which could have been released, kept as pets, or continued life in some other fashion.
The question is how should the new Bill deal with the question of re-use so as to avoid the current wastefulness, but also to avoid repeated re-use? This is a general and understandable concern. The Government's proposals based upon the second White Paper and contained in Clause 14(1) drop the requirement to kill the animal. But re-use is still prohibited: surviving healthy animals which are not then killed must not be used again for experimental work.
The amendment before your Lordships' Committee in our view improves upon the position at least logically by allowing re-use under terminal anaesthesia. In this way there is no possibility of the animal being re-used more than once. Since during the second procedure it is under general anaesthetic from which it does not recover, it obviously experiences no pain whatever resulting from its re-use.
10.15 p.m.
The amendment should reduce the number of animals used in scientific or experimental procedures, and that is a wholly laudable objective and one trenchantly proposed and agreed by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris.
However, there are some difficulties associated with the amendment. It is what the Government originally proposed. The proposal in the first White Paper to allow the re-use of animals, but only under terminal anaesthesia, was criticised as a reduction from the controls in the 1876 Act. The numbers of animals involved would be quite small and in all the circumstances the Government thought it right to restore that total prohibition, but we are naturally willing to listen to views, such as those being expressed in this Committee stage.
My impression of the feeling of this discussion is that the Committee is broadly in favour of the principle of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. If your Lordships would like me to accept the principle of that amendment I shall, of course, do so. But I do not think that we should accept the amendment as it stands. There are one or two problems with it; there is no provision to ensure that the animal does not suffer some inconvenience during the period between recovery of consciousness after the first use and the administration of anaesthetic for the second. Thus an animal could be left, perhaps for several days, although Clause 15 would ensure that it was suffering no adverse effects while it waited, before being taken away and used for a second time. More generally, the amendment makes no arrangement for the control of the re-use itself, as well as the interval preceding it, and there is no possibility of refusing permission for re-use.
These difficulties could be overcome by inserting a provision similar to that in Clause 14(3) requiring the

763
specific consent of the Secretary of State before re-use. I have indicated that the Government are in sympathy with the intention. If the noble Lord is happy with that assurance, perhaps I can take it away and consider further what might be done.
Lord Adrian: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. On the understanding that it will be considered and the defects in my amendment put straight, I shall be glad to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Neuromuscular blocking agents]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 11, line 22, after ("unless") insert ("in the presence of a qualified anaesthetist and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would add the words
"in the presence of a qualified anaesthetist and"
after the reference to "blocking agent". When an animal is paralysed using neuromuscular blocking agents it can still experience pain and distress. Because it cannot move or cry it may appear to be anaesthetised and its lack of movement may enable the experiment to proceed. It is therefore highly desirable that to ensure that no major surgical experiment shall proceed on a conscious animal that neuromuscular blocking agents should be used only when the animal is also fully anaesthetised.
It is sometimes extremely difficult to distinguish between an anaesthetised animal and one which is merely paralysed. That is why a fully qualified anaesthetist's presence is required. It was for this reason that the RSPCA published a resolution in 1985 saying that a competent anaesthetist should be present at all major surgical experiments requiring the use of muscle relaxants to ensure that full anaesthesia is maintained throughout the procedure. My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: I start by saying that I do understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but I hope I shall be able to reassure him. The Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876 is in many respects an Act which provides great flexibility. However, it contains a very specific provision in respect of a neuromuscular blocking agent, prohibiting its use as an anaethetic. The Government recognise that it was concern about the potential of these agents for accidental or deliberate misuse which promoted the provision of the 1876 Act and that is why Clause 17(a) of the Bill reproduces it in an up-to-date form.
The effect of the amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Airedale and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, would be to require the presence of a qualified anaesthetist every time a neuromuscular blocking agent is used during a regulated procedure. Under this Bill and in contrast to the existing arrangements, the
764
administration of an anaesthetic would be a regulated procedure requiring an appropriate personal licence. Permission to administer an anaesthetic during a procedure where neuromuscular blocking agents are used will only be granted to licensees who are fully competent to achieve and maintain the appropriate level of anaesthesia.
Your Lordships will recall that under Clause 17(a) the use of neuromuscular blocking agents during a procedure requires specific authorisation from the Secretary of State. The precise level of expertise in anaesthesia required will be assessed by the inspector who advises the Secretary of State on such applications. The degree of expertise required will thus be tailored to fit the individual circumstances and of course in a number of cases where the agent is only used to affect a small area of the animal no anaesthetic is needed. I should emphasise that of course in no circumstances will the use of these agents be allowed in place of an anaesthetic.
By contrast, the proposed amendments insert a rigid requirement for an anaesthetist to be present, with a single level of qualification applied to all the possible circumstances. I believe this would provide no more protection for the animals involved than they will receive under the Government's proposals which I have outlined, and there would be a considerable drawback in the unnecessarily high demands which would be made on highly skilled staff. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment is not necessary, will recognise that proper safeguards do exist and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that explanation. I recognise that certainly my amendment goes too far as it at present stands. I should like to take it away and read what the Minister has said, and talk it over with various people to see whether I think anything rather less far-reaching would need to be brought forward at a later stage; but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [The Animal Procedures Committee]:
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 12, line 24, leave out ("and")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 essentially go together.
Amendment No. 57: Page 12, line 25, at end insert—
("and
(c) no member shall be appointed who is opposed to the objects of the Act,")
I put these down because I wished to emphasise that I believe that the composition of the Animal Procedures Committee is probably the correct one. The purpose of this amendment is essentially to emphasise that its main purpose is to provide informed advice on welfare and science to the Secretary of State. My purpose is to ensure that the Animal Procedures Committee

765
represents the middle ground in these matters and that its members are appointed for their own qualifications and not because they represent some particular interest. I should be as sorry to see in the committee a scientist who was not concerned with animal welfare as an animal-lover who believed that animal experiments should be stopped forthwith.
If the procedures committee is to provide the Secretary of State with the advice that he needs, all the members of the committee should be aware of and concerned about the likely adverse effects on the animals and the benefits likely to accrue as a result of the proposed programme of research. The concern of all members should be to make—and I quote from the preamble to the Bill—
"provision for the protection of animals used for experimental … purposes",
and not to abolish the use of animals for experiments for scientific purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: We shall be coming in a moment to an amendment that I have put down with regard to the make-up of the committee. But I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and I think that this is a very worthwhile amendment.
Lord Melchett: I am afraid that I am not happy with this amendment. I am not entirely clear about the "objects of the Act" to which the amendment refers. But in any case it seems to me extremely undesirable that, presumably, some sort of test should be applied by the Secretary of State which would involve asking people in detail what were their views about certain subjects before the Secretary of State was able to appoint them. What position the Secretary of State would be left in if somebody changed his mind when he saw in detail how the Act was working, I am not sure. Presumably, such a person would be forced to resign from the committee, if he told the Secretary of State that he had changed his mind. If he did not tell the Secretary of State that he had changed his mind, the Secretary of State would be breaking the law. I think that the amendment is a bit of a nonsense.
I believe I am not the only person in your Lordships' House who does not believe that animals should be used for experimental purposes. I believe that it is morally wrong and indefensible and I said as much at Second Reading. But I hope that has not stopped me or others who hold that view to a greater or lesser extent from contributing to the debates we have had on this Bill and trying to make it a better piece of legislation. There are clearly those who believe that there is no moral objection to using animals in experimentation, and they have taken part in the debates on the Bill and tried to make it a better piece of legislation as well. If we can do that in this House on this Bill, it is a little arrogant for us to assume that it will not be possible for people who hold strongly different moral perspectives on the use of animals for experiments and other abuses of animals to play a constructive part in the committee in the future.
The Earl of Halsbury: I cannot agree with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Anyone opposed to the objects of the Act
766
would simply constitute a saboteur, if he was sitting with a blocking power on this committee. It is for Parliament, this House and the other House, to decide whether or not this is to be the law, and, if it is decided that this should be the law, then to appoint someone who will sabotage the Act, as it were, would make a complete nonsense. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in a moment of introspection might consider what has been happening to his own honourable friends and his party when they have been infiltrated by Militant. Militant anti-vivisectionists who infiltratred this Act would be just as difficult to deal with as the noble Lord's colleagues have found.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I have reservations about this amendment, because we have been insisting throughout on the discretion of the Home Secretary. The noble Lord the Minister has not agreed to amendments which alter "may" to "shall" because he has again and again reiterated the need for the discretion of the Secretary of State. It seems to me that this committee is being appointed by the Secretary of State and that his discretion should be unfettered in this respect if his discretion is unfettered in the other respects which we have considered and have not been allowed to change to "shall" instead of "may".
I sympathise with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, as I hope he sympathised with my sentiments when I said I felt that the Secretary of State "should" do something, rather than "might" do something. But, if the spirit of the whole Bill is to leave things to the discretion of the Secretary of State, then I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: I agree that this is a most cumbersome amendment which I do not think we ought to impose on the Home Secretary. There are those who think vivisection should be abolished and those who think we should not waste too much money on anaesthetics. There are the two groups which are violently opposed and you will never find out who they are.
Lord Airedale: This amendment is about the objects of the Bill. Let us just see what are the objects of the Bill. We find them in the Long Title. It is,
"An Act to make new provision for the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes".
The Bill is not concerned with whether they ought to be used for experimental purposes; it is for their protection when they are so used, and I cannot believe that anybody would object to that.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: This amendment goes some way to allay one's fears that the discussions in the Animal Procedures Committee might accept too readily the assumptions in favour of laboratory users. To that extent I welcome it. But there are difficulties with the amendment. What are the objects of the Bill? I am sure that we shall hear more about that when we come to Amendment No. 62. Having given the amendment a qualified acceptance, I am very much more in sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, which I think is Amendment No. 58.
Lord Glenarthur: I agree entirely with the idea which underlies the noble Lord's amendment, but I am quite convinced that it would be inappropriate to include it in the Bill. I shall endeavour to explain why.
I say straightaway that there is no likelihood of the Secretary of State ever appointing to the Animal Procedures Committee someone who is opposed to the objects of the legislation. I am not talking about my right honourable friend the present Home Secretary: I am speaking for any Home Secretary of any party, even if it does have Militant in it. That point was raised on my right.
Clearly, to do so would be to defeat the objects of the committee itself. I have some doubts on the practicality of the idea, however one assesses a person's attitude. What of people who disagree with some aspects of the Act but nevertheless have a considerable contribution to make on others—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett? I suggest to your Lordships that there is already a provision to achieve the purpose of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian; there is no need to place a further requirement on the Secretary of State.
What is important is that there should be a balance of expertise and a balance of viewpoints on the committee. Clause 19 provides for that balance. A majority of scientists say that a full range of expert opinion is available, but with the number of current or recent licence holders limited to at most no more than half the membership. As well as the legally qualified members specified in Clause 19 there will be other lay representatives, including, as now, members of animal welfare groups. They, like all other members of the committee, have a valuable contribution to make, and they have already made it in the existing advisory committee. In short, it is intended to do what we said in the second White Paper would be done—to appoint a committee which combines scientific eminence with a recognised concern for animals.
While I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, for having given your Lordships the opportunity to consider this important point, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that it is neither necessary nor in any way desirable to include these words in the Bill, and that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Adrian: I have listened to the arguments, and especially the arguments of the right reverend Prelate. I was delighted to see his conversion to the doctrine of the Secretary of State's discretion. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 12, line 28, after ("1876") insert ("and so that the interests of laboratory users and animal welfare are equally represented")
The noble Lord said: Successive Governments have recognised that in the field of animal experimentation there are two major public interests: the legitimate interest of science, health and industry, and the interest of animal welfare.
There are quite clearly a numberof Members of this Committee, and a large number of the public, who would say that the two could be absolutely identical, that these two interests need not clash. I and at least two or three other Members of the Committee do not believe that that is necessarily true. We believe that there are here two different paradigms of thinking that clash.
For the purposes of this Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, for the purposes of the immediate good that it will do, we are prepared to forsake exposition of our particular world view, of our particular paradigm, in order not to take up the time of the Committee, though I hesitate to promise not to make a speech on Third Reading on the subject, and maybe one or two other noble Lords will feel the same need after having endured this Committee stage and the Report stage.
Having said that, in a highly flexible system such as that being proposed in the Bill much will depend on how the new law will be administered and who influences its administration; both public interests should be fairly represented. The Government recognise that, and the noble Lord the Minister, in what he has just said, has gone a long way to meet my point in commenting on the make-up of the committee. It is clearly not good enough to pack the Animal Procedures Committee with one side or the other. Clearly the people who are involved in experimenting should not be judge and jury in their own cause.
This amendment does not exclude the possibility of a lay element on the committee. All it seeks is equal representation from the two expert interest groups. That could mean, for instance, 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. from each interest group, with the rest being lay members; but it must be fairly balanced.
Again, I believe that among certain of the scientists represented tonight in this Committee there will be a temptation to think that their attitude to these matters is the norm. It so happened that I was looking through my research library this morning and I came across an interesting comparison, a similar case—research by Professor Stephen Cotgrove into the question of the attitudes of industrialists, ecologists and ordinary citizens towards pollution and other problems of that nature in the countryside.
Professor Cotgrove undertook very careful research into people's views. One of his findings was that although the ecologists clearly represented an extreme and the industrialists clearly represented an extreme, and neither thought they were actually extreme—if your Lordships follow me—nevertheless the view of the general public was much nearer to that of the ecologists than it was to that of the industrialists. That slightly surprising finding may be duplicated here, where those of us who are very specifically concerned with animal welfare may find that we are nearer to the position of the general public or that they are nearer to our position than to that of the scientists.
When any noble Lords who wish to speak have done so and the Minister has replied, I intend to withdraw the amendment. I am clear that it should not go on the statute book as it is, but I think that it makes a valid point which is worth putting on the record and worth the Government's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: If the amendment has been tabled just to get a statement and to put a point of view on the record I think some of the rest of your Lordships should put their views on the record, too; namely, I do not think it is the case that people who are laboratory users and people who are concerned with animal welfare are separately identifiable as different groups. I do not believe that they are antipathetic and can be marshalled on one side or the other. I do not believe that they are diametrically opposed.
Many laboratory users are interested in animal welfare. Many people who are interested in animal welfare are laboratory users. It would be a ridiculous categorisation of people to try this sort of thing in regard to an advisory committee. These advisory committees depend for their success, and for their effect on public opinion, on the good sense with which they are manned and the good sense with which they then do their work and issue guidance. In all the committees I have ever known it has always been left to the discretion of the Home Secretary or the Minister at the time to provide that sort of balance which gives the committee its credibility and its effectiveness.
I honestly and deeply resent from the point of view of scientists or pharmaceutical workers the implication in this amendment that in some way they are separate from and antipathetic to the animal welfare lobby.
The Earl of Selkirk: I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I do not think that we should tie the Home Secretary's hands too closely. Indeed, I rather think that they are too closely tied already. I would be inclined to modify the position. One obvious source which I suggest should be brought in is, say, a professor of animal behaviour, or people in that class of work. They do not readily fall into either of the categories. I ask the Government to look at this seriously to see whether too much has not been specified already in this regard.
We must trust the Home Secretary. It is a difficult decision to make. People should be appointed who, frankly, are not too closely and personally involved in whatever side of the question it may be, but who are profoundly interested in ensuring that this work is done in the spirit of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I should like to put a somewhat different viewpoint. I would not wish in any way to distinguish laboratory users from those who are conerned with animal welfare, but there are lay people who have thought deeply on these matters, and who indeed have written on ethical philosophy with particular reference to animals, who would make an excellent lay contribution in such a committee.
Your Lordships may well know that within the Church our endeavours are greatly helped by having lay members—those who are not experts in the actual practice of certain aspects—on our committees. I think that this committee would be greatly strengthened if it could have such people as members. I would not wish to go by the words of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, any more than I think he would—and I think the word "equally" is a little unfortunate—but I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will take seriously the suggestion that we
770
might have within the Bill some such phrase so that the interests of animal welfare are fully and properly represented and allow the possible inclusion of that kind of lay person. Such an inclusion would allay any doubts which the general public may have, perhaps in their ignorance, about the proper constitution of such a committee.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Melchett: Perhaps I may just make one very quick point. I do not support the amendment, though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that it is an important point to raise. I should just like to say to my noble friend that while many people who work in laboratories may be concerned, as he puts it, for animal welfare, nevertheless there are two distinct points of view—and there are people in the middle as well. There are those people who believe that animal experiments are justified and those who believe that they are not. I see that my noble friend is shaking his head.
Lord Northfield: That is a different point from what is in the amendment.
Lord Melchett: I rose only because I wanted to make a different point; otherwise I should have been wasting your Lordships' time, with due respect. Those two different points of view exist. I oppose this amendment because we hope that this Bill will become an Act and will last for a long period of time. I hope, too, that eventually there will be enough alternatives to the use of animals in experiments and sufficiently strong public opinion against the use of animals in experiments for such experiments virtually to come to an end. At that stage it will be necessary to have far more than half the people on the Animal Procedures Committee who do not believe that animals should be used in experiments at all, and this amendment would then be restrictive.
Lord Glenarthur: The Animal Procedures Committee will certainly have an important role to play under the proposed new system of control. It is therefore quite right that we should give the most careful consideration to the membership of this committee, and I am glad that this amendment has given us the opportunity to do so.
For many years now a non-statutory body, the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments, has provided successive Home Secretaries with expert and helpful advice on the subject of animal experimentation. The majority of the members have a scientific, veterinary or medical background. There are also representatives of animal welfare interests and members with a deep experience of ethical and moral questions—the sort of questions about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham was concerned.
Our experience of the admirable work of the present committee has proved to us, if proof were needed, that individuals with varying backgrounds can work together harmoniously and productively; it has also proved that individuals cannot be typecast. Distinguished scientists and clinicians do not live and work in a moral vacuum. They are well able to reflect upon delicate ethical and moral issues. Similarly, non-

771
scientists can give penetrating scrutiny to scientific assumptions and ideas.
The right reverend Prelate suggested that we should include something about the interests of animal welfare. I shall say to the right reverend Prelate that I should like to study his remarks. I do not want to commit myself in any way at the moment, but I should like to study his remarks and see whether there may be something in them which will be of use in the Bill. But I should not like to be held to that without seriously considering his remarks.
The amendment tries to introduce into the composition of the Animal Procedures Committee a predetermined balance of the scientific and animal welfare interests involved. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, suggested that there was some difference between the two of them and that they could somehow exist separately. I myself certainly do not believe that that is the case. I do not believe either that a balance is achievable in the way that the noble Lord wishes it to be; nor do I believe that it is necessarily desirable. I do not think it is possible to identify and weigh the likely contributions of members of the committee in such a way as to achieve the suggested balance. Because of the nature of the subject the committee will need a good measure of scientific expertise, but we shall continue to appoint scientists who also have other perspectives and views to contribute. I hope also that we can continue to obtain the broad range of skill and thought supplied by non-scientists, and I believe that this approach is right and is the most obviously workable one.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am glad the Minister said that he would consider the suggestion of the right reverend Prelate. It seemed to me to mix in well with the ingredients of the membership of the committee. Not only would a lay member create the balance that he suggests: he may also see issues in a purely common sense way, more easily related to the thoughts of the general public.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Selkirk: Subsection (9) states:
"The Secretary of State may also defray any other expenses of the Committee".
Does that include secretariat and office expenses, or is it simply the personal expenses of the committee?
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think I can immediately answer that. Subsection (9) says:
"The Secretary of State may also defray any other expenses of the Committee".
Subsection (8) says that he may:
"make payments to the chairman by way of remuneration".
I think that it means all expenses. If I am wrong, I shall let my noble friend know.
The Earl of Selkirk: There must be a secretariat, a telephone and an office; otherwise, it will be a useless body.
Lord Glenarthur: With respect, I think that that is covered by the phrase "any other expenses". I do not think that my noble friend need worry.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Functions of the Committee]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 13, line 22, after ("to") insert ("investigate and report on its own initiative and")
The noble Lord said: With this it may be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 60 and 61.
Amendment No. 60: Page 13, line 22, leave out ("such")
Amendment No. 61: Page 13, line 23, leave out from ("it") to end of line 24.
This is an amendment which I might move to any Bill, whether or not it is about animal procedures. When we have these high-powered committees it is as well to give them the power to publish. I do not think that anything is gained by making it dependent on the permission of the Secretary of State. We know that, whereas the ideal Secretary of State—the platonic Secretary of State who all Ministers have in their minds when they speak from the Front Bench—would never be cowardly enough to try to stop something being published, in the past Secretaries of State have tried to stop things being published which were for the general interest. Having put such a high-powered committee together and taken immense trouble with it, it is worthwhile giving it the powers to publish whether or not the Secretary of State wants it. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support the amendment, but I wonder whether Clause 20(1) requires clarification. The animals committee can offer advice when it is sought by the Secretary of State, but can it also offer advice when it is not asked? That is my first question.
Under subsection (4) the committee may promote research. Is it anticipated that the committee will be its own research body; and, if so, what funds will be available to it?
The Earl of Selkirk: Will the committee have access to and see the inspectors' reports? I do not differ from what the noble Lord said. The clause is fairly clear, but I should like to know the answer to that question. Secondly, to what extent will they have access to laboratories and elsewhere should they so desire this?
Lord Glenarthur: I am rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, say that this is the sort of facility that he would like to grant any Secretary of State under any piece of similar legislation. I do not think that this is an acceptable position in which to place any Secretary of State. The existing wording of Clause 20(1) of the Bill gives the committee scope to investigate matters which it has suggested to the Secretary of State provided that he agrees. The committee can also investigate matters put directly to it by the Secretary of State. This represents, I think, a reasonable balance of power.
The committee can press the Secretary of State, but he retains ultimate control over the work undertaken—work that he finances and that is

773
undertaken in order to advise him. Even then, the committee is not finished. Clause 20(5) provides that each year the committee must make a report to the Secretary of State who, in turn, must lay the report before Parliament. In the unlikely event that it was necessary, the committee could, by this means, notify Parliament of its disquiet.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was concerned about publication. I can tell him that the Secretary of State cannot stop the committee publishing its views. That is contained in Clause 20(5). The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me four questions, one of which was about funds and research. The committee can propose research. The Home Secretary finances it if he can afford it. The noble Lord asked whether or not the committee can offer advice where it is not asked to do so. I believe that I have covered that in the central part of my reply.
As for the committee being able to see the inspectors' reports, inspectors will address meetings when necessary. Visits to laboratories will be arranged for the committee, and I have no doubt at all that the committee will need to be kept fully abreast of all the conditions and types of work that are carried out in laboratories. They will need to be familiar with the way in which the inspectors work. I do not believe that it will be necessary for them specifically to see those reports. I understand the importance attached to the independent advice that the Animal Procedures Committee provide—this is very much the tone of the debate—but this amendment would create a most unusual and unworkable relationship between the Secretary of State and the committee. I do not honestly see that either side would benefit. I hope that the noble Lord will see the force of the argument and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Melchett: I am astonished at the noble Lord's reply. I had assumed that the answer was going to be that the committee had power to do this anyhow. This is an advisory committee first of all. It is not a committee carrying out instructions on the Secretary of State's behalf in an executive capacity. It is there as a group of independent scientists, of other experts and of those with a particular interest in the subject to give the Home Secretary advice in a very technical and very controversial area.
The noble Lord is saying that because the Secretary of State pays the expenses of this committee, and other things, it is unreasonable for the committee to look around and to give the Secretary of State advice on something unless the Home Secretary has said, "OK—you can give me advice". One begins to ask what is the point of having an advisory committee at all. It must surely be the case that the advisory committee should have power to investigate and to consider anything that comes within its general terms of reference without having to run to the Home Secretary first and ask his permission, which, as I now understand it, is what the Bill says that it would have to do. The noble Lord says that this would create an impossible relationship between the Home Secretary and the committee. Surely, quite the reverse! In my experience, most advisory committees, set up by Government and funded by Government—and,
774
indeed, some large quangos that have executive as well as advisory functions—are free to give advice within the remit of the legislation that sets them up.
11 p.m.
This committee is now being established by Act of Parliament. If I may say so to the noble Lord, it seems to me that he is looking at the committee as if it was still the informal committee without clear terms of reference, without statutory authority, which the department has been used to working with in the past. But this is a different ball game. It is a statutory committee with statutory terms of reference. The statute covers the kinds of people and the sorts of interest which are represented on it.
I would urge the noble Lord to have another think about this. I think it would be quite intolerable if the committee were not free to decide for itself what areas it wanted to investigate. It is then for the Secretary of State to decide whether he listens to it or not. He still has that discretion, after all.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: While I agree with practically every word that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, nevertheless I am reassured by the Minister's reminder that Clause 20(5) has a safeguard. It has the backstop that the committee shall make a report on its activities and that the Secretary of State shall lay copies of the report before Parliament. Therefore, there is a safeguard.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who obviously feels passionately on this subject, may want to put something down at Report stage, but for the moment—
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment I want to make one more point. I think at least two other noble Lords wanted to say something. I want simply to say to the noble Lord that the suggestion that an advisory committee will issue an annual report to Parliament in which it lists all the things that the Home Secretary has not let it investigate, and that this will lead to a happy or constructive relationship between the advisory committee and the Home Secretary, is clearly not right.
Lord Glenarthur: I think that the noble Lord must have a rather more realistic understanding of the relationship that is likely to exist between the committee and the Secretary of State. It is delving into the realms of fantasy when he suggests that the committee will not be able to undertake the kind of work which he envisages, when, as we have said, the committee will make a report which will stand before Parliament, and since in any case the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament.
However, on the more operational day-to-day administration of the business—if I can put it that way—the Secretary of State must in the end be able to limit the subject matter which the committee investigates. But, of course, the Secretary of State will normally accept the committee's suggestions about the subjects that it is proposing to the Secretary of State. I think that this is quite logical and I do not see, with the safeguards built into this clause in the way that the

775
noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has described, that Parliament—to whom the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible—need in any way fear that the Animal Procedures Committee will be inhibited in the work that it will want to carry out.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: If the committee makes a report and lists the number of things which the Secretary of State has not allowed it to do there will be an almighty row. It seems to me that that is the most that one can hope for; and it will happen.
Unless anyone wishes to object to my withdrawing this amendment and takes this to a Division, may I beg leave to withdraw the amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 13, line 27, leave out ("protection of animals against avoidable suffering") and insert ("need to reduce, and where practical eliminate, the use of animals in regulated procedures.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the remit of the Animal Procedures Committee. I attach a great deal of importance to the wording in Clause 20(2), where the committee is asked to balance two matters. I am avoiding the suggestion that these might be competing considerations in case my noble friend jumps up to tell me that everyone interested in the legitimate requirements of science is also by definition interested in the protection of animals against avoidable suffering. I hope that we can take that as read.
Nevertheless, there are two matters which the committee have to balance. I must say I do not think at the moment that the balance is right. I also do not think that my amendment gets it entirely right, and therefore I shall not be pressing it. Indeed, I intend to withdraw it.
However, I must say to the Government that, while they have tried very hard to get a balance between—as it is put in the Bill—
"the legitimate requirements of science and industry",
and the protection and welfare of animals, I do not think that the wording is right. There is a need to recognise that those who are concerned about experiments carried out on animals are not just concerned to minimise the suffering that the animals undergo; they are also concerned to reduce the number of animals on whom experiments are performed. There is a dual concern.
My worry about the Bill as a whole is that in the terms of reference of the Animal Procedures Committee only one of the two aspects of the worries of those of us who oppose animals being used in experiments is currently mentioned. I do not think that that is acceptable. It is as though, for example, the legitimate requirements of science were mentioned but there was no mention of industry; or as though the legitimate requirements of research were mentioned but there was no mention of the legitimate requirements of testing and safety.
On the animal welfare side—if I may characterise it inaccurately in that way—half of the interest has been omitted from the terms of reference. Although I think
776
that what I have done wrong with my amendment is to leave out the words:
"the protection of animals against avoidable suffering"
which should remain in the provision—I accept that that is one matter, at least, which I have got wrong—I nevertheless think that there is an overwhelming need for some reference, as regards the area which the Animal Procedures Committee must look at, to the need to keep under review opportunities to reduce and eliminate the use of animals in experimental procedures.
Perhaps I may draw an analogy with a debate which we had on the Food and Environment Protection Bill about the use of pesticides in the countryside. The Government's initial terms of reference for the advisory committee—incidentally, an advisory committee free to undertake such work as it saw fit and not subject to any conditions requiring the Secretary of State's approval; but we shall come back to that matter on Report—were quite restricted and involved looking at safety of products and so on. However, your Lordships' House saw fit to extend the terms so that the advisory committee could keep under review the developments of alternatives to pesticides. The idea of keeping the field under review and the opportunity to move forward and make changes in general terms should be written into the terms of reference of the Animal Procedures Committee. I hope that that general point of view—and I do not pretend that the words of my amendment are right—will find favour with your Lordships. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. Speaking as a total non-scientist, I believe that we have seen science turning itself over in the last 30, 40 or 50 years and we are left wondering about the next step it will take. It seems to be perfectly fair to take the view that much that is now done with animals will be done by other means in the next 50 years. This matter should be borne in mind and should be mentioned somewhere in the Bill. That is all that I ask. I am sure that it is important.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I should like to support what has just been said. This principle has found a place within the guidelines which will become the code of practice. A project licence shall not be issued unelss there can be satisfaction that it cannot be done by any other means. So the principle is actually implicit in the code of practice. It seems to me a great pity that such a vital principle does not find any place within the Bill. We are almost selling ourselves short in this respect. As it is in the code of practice, will not the noble Lord the Minister give consideration to the possibility of including it in the Bill?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I, too, shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this. As the right reverend Prelate said, it is implicit in the whole Bill, so why not include the words "need to reduce" the number of animals used in experimentation in the Bill? Certainly one has the feeling that this is very much one of the objectives of the Bill and, indeed, it is taking place anyhow. If it is at all possible, why not include this reassurance?
The Earl of Halsbury: Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that I was the pioneer on this question of having a statutory advisory body. I thought that it was the absolute clue to establishing good relations between the public, the experimenter and the Government. It has taken me six years to persuade the Government to agree to have a statutory body whose findings they cannot suppress because they would be part of an annual report made to Parliament.
However, in claiming to have been the pioneer in this, I shall not wreck my own handiwork by the wrong managerial structure. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment Nos. 63 and 64 as well, because they illustrate my point.
Amendment No. 63: Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) The Committee or any member of the Committee may at any time inspect any application for a personal licence, any application for a project licence and any application for a certificate under secton 7, or any such licence or certificate once granted by the Secretary of State.").
Amendment No. 64: Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The Committee or any member of the Committee may visit places where regulated procedures are carried out for the purpose of determining whether those procedures are authorised by the requisite licences and whether the conditions of those licences are being complied with, and visit designated establisments for the purpose of determining whether the conditions of the certificates in respect of those establishments are being complied with.").
Lord Melchett: I have not moved Amendment Nos. 63 and 64 and I do not intend to at this stage.
The Earl of Halsbury: In that case, perhaps I may make the general managerial point that the Committee must not do the work of the inspectorate. That would be an entirely wrong way to approach its work. The inspectors are the people who report direct to the Minister on how the Act is being administered. That is not the purpose of the advisory committee.
With regard to Amendment No. 62 in particular, I was always taught that the general imports the particular and, therefore, "the protection of animals against avoidable suffering", which is the essential part of the Bill, of course imports the:
"need to reduce and, where practical eliminate, the use of animals in regulated procedures".
If you include the general term, I do not think that you need the particular term, because the:
"need to reduce and, where practical eliminate, the use of animals in regulated procedures"
is included in the "protection of animals against avoidable suffering".
Lord Airedale: All sides of the Committee want to see the Animal Procedures Committee working towards eliminating, where practical, the use of animals. I hope that we can have an agreed amendment along those lines.
Lord Glenarthur: The amendment adds nothing to the provisions already in the Bill which it seeks to replace, but instead has the effect of narrowing and weakening the formulation which describes the task of the Animal Procedures Committee. Perhaps I may refer the Committee to Clause 20(2), which states:
"In its consideration of any matter the Committee shall have regard both to the legitimate requirements of science and industry and to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering".
778
Quite simply, is that not what the Bill is about? It seems to me to be so and it also seems to be very clearly expressed. It sets out the principle of balance to which your Lordships have referred many times in these debates. It says that the Animal Procedures Committee shall observe and promote that principle in discharging its duties. The expression:
"the protection of animals against avoidable suffering"
is a very wide-ranging one indeed. It covers the avoidance of the unnecessary use of animals in procedures, using fewer animals, using less severe procedures, alleviating suffering so far as possible where suffering has to be inflicted, and whenever possible using alternatives to animals, something which my noble friend Lord Selkirk looks forward to, as I do.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says only some of that and it does so in more words. It is confined to replacing animals in experiments and reducing the numbers used. It does not touch upon the idea of reducing the level of suffering of animals which are used in procedures, the improved use of analgesia, improved standards of care, protection against disease or accident. All these things are other factors the Animal Procedures Committee will need to be concerned about when it,
"has regard to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering".
I commend the original wording to your Lordships.
I am not asking the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to repeat some of the points he made but I should like to study them to see whether there is any scope for amplifying Clause 22. There may be from what he said, but I do not think it is strictly within the ambit of the wording that he has on the Marshalled List, and that is why it is probably best to examine closely what he said. I can assure the noble Lord that if there is any give here I shall try to find it, and I hope that gives him the encouragement he needs.
Lord Airedale: We are talking about two different things. The Minister is talking about the protection of animals against avoidable suffering, and the amendment talks about eliminating, where practical, the use of animals in experiments. They are two different things. Unless we can have some words on the lines of the amendment in this clause, we shall be very disappointed.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I am going to accept what the noble Lord has said, and I know that everyone wants to get on, but the point that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just made was the point I wanted to make. This answers the point of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We have been told during the course of these debates that there are regulated procedures which do not involve suffering; that there will be animals which are used as controls, for example; there will be animals which are anaesthetised. Maybe the administration of the anaesthetic involves suffering, but as I remember it the noble Earl described to us last week how you anaesthetise a mouse, or a rat, with the express purpose of convincing your Lordships' Committee that no suffering was involved.

779
Simply to have in the Bill the need to protect animals against avoidable suffering does not cover all the points that my amendment covers. I accept that I should not take out the general words in the Bill. I admit that I have recognised that since I tabled the amendment, and I agree with the noble Lord about that; but I think there is a separate point, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, about the need to reduce and, where possible, eliminate the use of animals in regulated procedures, because some of them at least will be used in regulated procedures where no suffering, or only a minimal amount of suffering, is involved. There is another point which goes a little further than the general. If the noble Lord would look at that, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall look at what has been said by both the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I do not entirely follow the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on what he said, because the use of alternatives is an aspect of avoiding animal suffering. That is where the noble Lord is perhaps failing to grasp this particular matter. Having said that, I shall look at it and see what can be done, but without commitment.
Lord Melchett: The use of alternatives will not reduce avoidable suffering if the use of animals does not involve avoidable suffering. That is the point I was making. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said last week that it was possible to anaesthetise a mouse and then use it in an experimental procedure and kill it without the mouse suffering at all. There will be no suffering involved, and therefore to use an alternative would not avoid any suffering.
The suggestion is that there is a requirement for the Animal Procedures Committee to look at alternatives and to reduce the number of animals used in experiments, and that that should be added to the words already in there. That is the point I hope the Minister will look at. I am grateful to him for making that offer because I attach particular importance to this. I am sure that a genuine attempt has been made to get the balance right here, and I am equally certain, having listened to what has been said on my amendment, that the balance is at present not right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 63:
[Printed earlier: col. 777.]
The noble Lord said: It might be for convenience if we discussed Amendment No. 64 with this because both amendments cover the powers of the committee and what the committee can do.
[Printed earlier: col. 777.]
I am hoping that the noble Lord will tell me that it is not necessary to put this in the Bill because if any member of the committee wanted to look at an application for a personal licence or a project licence or to visit somewhere that was open to inspection by the Home Office inspectorate no obstacle would be put in his way. Perhaps I may leave it as short as that for the time being. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: The Animal Procedures Committee is intended to be an advisory body. It says that quite clearly in Clause 20(1). It will not have any executive functions under the Act; those will go to the inspector. The idea of the committee carrying out spot checks on applications for licences and certificates, or on licences and certificates themselves, is wholly inappropriate. Equally unacceptable is the idea of licences and applications existing as a sort of research library for members of the committee to browse in, without regard to the background or context of what they are looking at and the extent to which this work may impede or prevent research work being started. Of course my right honourable friend will furnish the committee with the information it needs to carry out its functions under the Act. But this amendment goes far beyond this. I must confess that, even after hearing the noble Lord's brief explanation, I cannot see how the proposal is supposed to help the committee or the Secretary of State on the operation of the Bill itself.
On top of that the amendment would give the committee, or any member of it, carte blanche to bring the administration of the Act to a complete halt. There are at present 20,000 or so licensees, 11,000 of them active. Most will need to be relicensed under the Act. There are some 500 registered places, virtually all of which are likely to need to seek certificates under the Act as scientific procedure establishments. There will be designated breeding and supplying establishments as well. The amendment is a bureaucratic nightmare and I trust that the noble Lord will not pursue it.
Lord Melchett: I am afraid that I am not at all reassured by all that. If that is the effect of the amendment, I apologise, but I had not intended that the committee, by asking to look at a project or personal licence application, should stop the processing of that application. I am sure that there are photocopies in the Home Office and it would be possible to let the committee have a copy while the original was being processed. I did not hear the noble Lord make any suggestions as to why the members of the committee could not visit establishments for which licences had been issued. That seems to me to be quite a reasonable power to give an advisory committee.
One of the functions of the advisory committee is to advise the Home Secretary on how this legislation is working. How this legislation is working will depend on how the Home Office inspectorate implements it. We all acknowledge that, and everyone has acknowledged that a large amount of responsibility and a great deal of trust are being given to the inspectorate. I do not see how the advisory committee will be in a position to give advice to the Home Secretary unless they are able to go to the places that the Home Office inspectors go to and see the papers that the Home Office inspectors are seeing. I am not suggesting that they should see every one. We went through that debate last week and it did not seem to me that there was any great objection to them seeing those bits of paper that they particularly wanted to see. I was not aware that there was a suggestion that things were being kept secret from the advisory committee, that they were not to be allowed into establishments which the Home Office inspectors are looking at, and that it would cause terrible disruption if they were able to see

781
the detail of the project or personal licence applications, which seemed to be what the noble Lord was suggesting. I shall have another look tomorrow or the next day at what he said and consider whether to return to this. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Guidance, codes of practice and statistics]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 65:
[Printed earlier: col. 756.]
The noble Lord said: I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord the Minister very warmly for the fact that he said earlier that he would accept this amendment. I am grateful. I hope we can come back to Amendment No. 67. I had a difficulty similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in understanding why that was not acceptable. But I am really very grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that he would accept this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 68 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 14, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) In all criminal and civil proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.")
The noble Lord said: These words are lifted verbatim from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, in the hope that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Codes of practice are becoming increasingly popular, it seems, in connection with legislation. It would seem right that codes of practice should not have the full force of statutory authority but should be taken seriously, and that people should disregard codes of practice at their peril. The Highway Code is an example of the kind of thing I am speaking about, and there are other examples too.
It seems right that, if you are in trouble before either a criminal or a civil court and you have failed to observe the codes of practice, that evidence (for what it is worth) can be given in court. And of course it works the other way as well. You will be entitled to say, "But I observed the code of practice religiously, and so what are you complaining of in my conduct?" That seems to be the right way to consider and approach the codes of practice, and I hope that the precedent of last year's Act is acceptable and that this amendment will be acceptable in this Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I hope the noble Lord the Minister will take this suggestion very seriously. At Second Reading I did mention the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, in which a similar provision is made in respect of those who breed and nurture animals for consumption. I
782
really cannot see any ethical ground on which we should have a provision for animals in one Act—that is, breeding for consumption—and not have it when they are being used for animal experiments. It suggests that the laboratory users are superior people to those who are engaged in intensive agriculture, and I do not think that we should make such a suggestion. That is not to impugn laboratory users in any way, but animals are animals, whether they are being bred for consumption or whether they are being used in order to increase knowledge and help human beings through experiments. I cannot see any ethical case for having the provision in one Act and refusing to have it in another. For this reason—a slightly different point from that made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—I do hope that the noble Lord the Minister will give this very serious consideration.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should like to support the right reverend Prelate. I also had read the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, and the relevant wording is to be found in Section 3 of that Act. The Act provides for the welfare of livestock, and to that end it provides that the code of conduct can be relied on in proceedings. So we have in the 1968 Act a very relevant precedent, unless the Minister can point out that the 1968 Act has not worked out in practice. All the evidence known to me shows that it has done so. As the Bill itself is not a comprehensive code dealing with regulating procedures, and deals only with the framework, we think that if the code is to bite, it must be connected to that Act. We think that the 1968 Act gives the Minister a very sound precedent.
11.30 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: I must confess that I am impressed by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, the right reverend Prelate, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Therefore, I am willing to consider the possible incorporation of an amendment of this kind into the Bill. But I should like to have a little time to assess the technical aspects of this change, after which I shall report to your Lordships. In view of that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Airedale: I am very encouraged by that reply. As soon as we come back from the Christmas Recess, we are to have a debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, devoted entirely to the place of codes of practice in legislation. After that debate we shall all be very much wiser and I am sure that we shall be in a position to agree a suitable amendment to this Bill on the Report stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 11, leave out first ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: I do not want to make a speech about this amendment. It looks to me as though the subsection is couched in the alternative, when it is concerned with two things which ought to be added together. It is such a small drafting point. I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: This amendment affects Clause 21(4). Clause 21(4) as worded in the Bill before us provides that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any information published by him under Clause 21, and any codes issued or approved by him under that clause. That is the effect of Clause 21(4). The Secretary of State has no discretion in the matter, once he has published, issued or approved the material in question. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, does not alter this position. I believe that the wording contained in the Bill achieves the desired effect, and that the amendment would diminish the clarity of the wording. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Airedale: I do not want to diminish the character of the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Protection of confidential information]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 15, line 18, after ("discloses") insert ("to the general public").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment it might be to the advantage of your Lordships to discuss also my Amendment No. 73 and Amendment No. 74, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett:
Amendment No. 73: Page 15, line 18, after ("any") insert ("technical");
Amendment No. 74: after ("any") insert ("commercially sensitive").
If someone is fulfilling a function under the new Act—for instance, as a member of the Animal Procedures Committee—and he or she learns of acts of cruelty, then it seems to me that he or she must have the unfettered right to inform others in authority of that situation. Of course, technical information, or commercially sensitive information, is another matter and we agree that it must be protected. But we must not carry this protection so far that we limit the possibility of what we all want, which is that the whole subject and facts about animal experimentation shall become more open and less furtive. Let us encourage as much information as possible and ensure that where there are real problems concerning any misbehaviour they are reported. Let us protect merely that which is technical and that which is commercial. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I think it is sensible to take Amendment No.74 with this amendment because it covers the same point. I am very concerned about this provision in Clause 24 which would make it very difficult for somebody on the advisory committee to talk about the work that the advisory committee was doing. I should be interested to know if the Government can provide any precedents for treating an advisory committee in this way. It seems to involve a lack of trust. I do not know which noble Lord is to
784
reply but I hope he will be able to take this point on board.
It seems to imply a lack of trust in the members whom the Home Secretary has himself appointed to the committee which goes beyond belief. I find it extraordinary. Under the Food and Environment Protection Act where there is a similar advisory committee advising the Secretary of State (it is appointed by the Secretary of State) and dealing with a subject involving a great deal of commercial confidentiality—possibly a great deal more than is likely to be the case under this Bill—Parliament saw fit to put in a totally different type of provision which insisted that information should be made public except where it is commercially sensitive. It strikes me as extraordinary that the Government should have adopted exactly the opposite procedure here of saying that nothing can be made public—and, if it is, you can be sent to gaol for doing it. This is not the way to engender public confidence in this system and I hope that one of the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and I have put down will prove acceptable to the Government.
Viscount Davidson: The Government do not wish people who may fulfil functions under the Bill—whether they are, say, an inspector, another official, an assessor or a member of the Animal Procedures Committee—to be anxious about the disclosure of information. However, as Clause 24 is currently drafted there is no need to be anxious. This is not a provision which is intended to apply to every word uttered, every fact acquired. People will of course be expected to behave with decorum and a due sense of discretion. But only when information is given on a specific in-confidence basis will the rigours of Clause 24 be relevant.
The first amendment therefore attempts to tackle an insubstantial problem. In addition the use of the term "the general public" in the amendment would create considerable problems if enacted. We would need a clear definition of the general public, one which is common to all the persons involved. It is surely not sensible to provide a heavy penalty for disclosure if the fact of disclosure will have to be determined in relation to a concept such as "the general public". Every person here will have his own view of what is the general public.
Though this amendment has been directed at possible leaks of information to the general public, the major concern, and the one which promoted inclusion of the clause in the Bill, is that commercially valuable material will be obtained by rival organisations or individuals rather than the general public. I believe that Clause 24 as it stands will achieve a satisfactory balance, enabling important and sensitive information of all types to be protected, while not endangering the liberty of individuals or encroaching on their normal behaviour.
The second amendment also aims to restrict the application of Clause 24. I am not sure how it would be possible to differentiate technical material from non-technical for the purposes of the Bill. But even if this were possible I think it would be an unfortunate restriction of the application of the clause. There is much non-technical information which is of great

785
importance. On the occasions when sensitive material has to be protected—be it personal, commercial, technical, or any other description—we must ensure that Clause 24 can take effect and without the possibility of a dispute over terminology.
We entirely agree that nobody must be inhibited from reporting an offence to the prosecuting authorities. Nor from giving the public as full information as possible, subject to the need to protect confidences. This advisory committee must respect confidences, and similar duties are placed on all the advisory committees under the Medicines Act 1968.
In speaking to the other amendments of this clause put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I referred to the need for the provisions of Clause 24 to cover all types of material that are given in confidence. This amendment would limit the protection of the clause solely to "commercially sensitive" material. I should not be happy to see a situation in which other material—for example, that containing intimate personal details—was not protected, and I view with alarm the prospect of attempting to define "commercial sensitivity".
I stress again that this clause is not intended to be oppressive and it certainly does not impose a code of secrecy on inspectors, assessors or members of the Animal Procedures Committee. It only requires people to maintain reasonable discretion and to appreciate the sensitivity of some of the information to which they may become privy in the course of their duties. Provided that such was necessary, it would not prevent, for example, a lay member of the Animal Procedures Committee from discussing with a scientific acquaintence some particular work that the committee had under review, provided of course that due discretion was observed in the terms and extent of any revelation made. The coverage of the clause as drafted is appropriately unrestricted, and it is clear. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, and as we are discussing my amendment as well, perhaps I may say a word. I must say that I find the noble Viscount's response extraordinarily unconvincing. First, the mind boggles at what intimate personal details would be revealed to the Animal Procedures Committee. I do not imagine that the Home Office inspectorate will be reporting in detail on the sex lives of different research workers, which is what the noble Viscount seemed to be implying. If he has any particular intimate personal details in mind, I shall be happy for him to intervene.
In any event, the noble Viscount's explanation did not seem to me to be at all convincing. I had understood the worry to be the release of commercially sensitive information, or information that would lead to prosecution, but which would in any event be covered by other Acts of Parliament. For example, I assume that all members of the Animal Procedures Committee will be required to sign the Official Secrets Act, and so they will be covered by that Act in any event.
The Government should consider the possibility of saying that the proceedings will be made public, and
786
then insert specific restrictions where they are justified, rather than adopt blanket secrecy with dire threats of prosecution. I am afraid that the noble Viscount did not convince me. I should still be interested to know what intimate personal secrets are to be revealed to the Animal Procedures Committee and which it might be in danger of revealing either to the general public or to the News of the World.
Lord Adrian: I expressed some doubt about this point on Second Reading, but I have found the noble Viscount's explanation entirely satisfactory. I withdraw my hesitations because I feel that the clause as it stands would be a great deal better than the clause as the amendments suggest it should be.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I want to re-examine this matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I am not happy about it. Equally, I feel that the amendments that I put forward need to be reconsidered and possibly redrafted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("or without")
The noble Lord said: I am concerned that Clause 25(1) as it stands would give a constable on his own the power forcibly to enter a registered laboratory. I am of course concerned that that provision might be used by anti-vivisectionists to generate unjustified intrusions into laboratories, though I do not believe that that is a serious deficiency in the clause as it stands. Were that to happen, I am fairly confident that it would not be allowed to continue for very long.
11.45 p.m.
I am much more seriously concerned that harm may come to an unaccompanied constable if he searches laboratories on his own. I particularly have in mind special bacteriological or biological containment laboratories. There could also be substantial problems if constables break in, using force, to a laboratory where animal diseases are studied.
Here I must declare an interest in that I have a connection with the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright, and I am conscious of the elaborate decontamination procedures that are required there for personnel going into and coming out of the containment areas. In so far as I am chairman of the governing body of that institute, I have a residual responsibility for disease security there and I would view with grave concern the right of a constable forcibly to enter the disease containment areas with the possibility of the escape of diseases from those areas.
I am certainly not concerned to prevent forcible entry by a constable with an inspector, but I believe that the presence of an inspector is an essential safeguard, or at least a very desirable safeguard, in what are bound to be technical matters and what are bound to be circumstances where a constable may not

787
have the necessary information to deal with the hazards which a laboratory may present under the circumstances in which he is searching it.
Therefore, I very much hope that the words "or without" may be withdrawn from the Bill, or at least that the noble Lord the Minister will undertake to give more thought to the particular circumstances in which a constable may enter and search without an inspector. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: Surely this must be right. A constable without an inspector in an animals laboratory would be very much out of his element and he must surely need the advice and help of an inspector when finding himself in those circumstances.
Lord McGregor of Durris: Surely the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, is compelling.
Viscount Davidson: The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has expressed some concern about the scope of the power in Clause 25 for a constable to enter and search premises on warrant. I should perhaps say first of all that we do not envisage this power being used except on very rare occasions. It is, however, possible to conceive of exceptional circumstances in which a very serious, deliberate infringement of the law was known to be taking place, and in which the power of entry could be necessary to prevent suffering by a protected animal. It is only right to guard against that possibility, remote though it may be.
The power in Clause 25 is wider than that in the present law, in that it will apply to designated establishments. Nothing sinister should be read into that, and I can assure your Lordships that the Government have no intention of departing from the system of inspection by consent (if I may so put it) which has worked effectively for the last hundred years. The reason for the change is simply that in the extreme circumstances in which the power might be invoked there would be little point in having distinctions as to the status of the place where the alleged offence was proceeding.
I now turn to the particular point raised by this amendment. The noble Lord is unhappy about the prospect of a constable entering premises without the company of an inspector. I agree that it is unlikely to be helpful to a police officer to enter premises without the benefit of an inspector's specialist knowledge which he would need in order to detect a possible offence. But, in the extreme circumstances to which I have referred, it is possible that the urgency of the situation or the unavailability of the inspector for any reason might make it imperative for a constable to act alone, which he could do appropriately if, for example, he had explicit and detailed information on the offence being committed.
For example, the inspector might be ill; there might be problems of geography; there might be problems of weather and road conditions; the inspector might be on holiday; his car might have broken down. There are various reasons why the inspector might not be available when the matter is urgent. In such a situation, the urgent execution of an appropriate warrant should not be prevented.
788
I am aware of other points which have been raised on Clause 25. It has been suggested that the power might be open to abuse and in particular that warrants might be issued as a result of mischievous or irresponsible applications. I can reassure your Lordships about that. It is not the practice of magistrates to issue warrants willy nilly to anyone who comes to them alleging an offence. It is most unlikely that they would do so other than on the application of a police officer. Even if some uncrupulous person were successfully to apply for a warrant, the police would be under no obligation to act upon it. We shall be issuing guidance to chief officers of police about the operation of the Bill when it becomes law, and we shall ensure that the points which the noble Lord has raised on this clause are dealt with in that.
I hope that I have succeeded in allaying anxiety about this provision. We are in general agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and will certainly cover his points in the guidance to the police. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these points. However, I would urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment to this clause.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I must say that I think I am more convinced by the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, than by the Minister's explanations. I understood what he said about the danger to the constable owing to the nature of the experiments which were taking place, and I felt that if, as the Minister said, such an occurrence were so rare, then surely an inspector could be made available. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Adrian will be quite happy with the Minister's explanation, in which case of course I shall be too—but up to now I am not sure that I am.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am little disturbed by the complacency in the statement by the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson. Magistrates and police officers have no insights into biological and bacteriological dangers. I find it appalling to think that with 17 inspectors—I believe that there are 17 at the moment—at the Home Office, not one of them could be inspanned in a case of emergency. I hope that if the noble Viscount is to reconsider this matter, on the assumption perhaps that my noble friend Lord Adrian will not push it to a Division, he will include the possibility of the Home Office appointing a local consultant to the police in such a case. There could be a provision in this Bill for him to do that brought up on Report. That is one of the points which I should like an assurance from the noble Viscount that he will consider, because I really was somewhat worried by the note of complacency.
Lord Adrian: I find my particular concerns about the particular place that I mentioned not altogether allayed, and I should like to ask whether the advice to the police with respect to especially sensitive institutions of that kind would be made public or at least would be available to the institutions concerned. I think that in giving local advice to the local police forces, it would be extremely important that the particular circumstances of the particular institutions should be made known and, in a sense, agreed between the institutions and the police.
Viscount Davidson: I am sorry that I was unable to allay the concern and the worries of my noble friend

789
Lord Adrian about this matter. I can say that all the points that have been made so far by noble Lords and by the noble Baroness will be in the guidance to the police and will be taken into account. I do not believe that we shall be able to make it public—no, I am sorry, advice to the police will be put in the Library of the House. Apart from that, I do not think I can say anything more.
Lord Adrian: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Prosecution]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 16, line 4, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 7.
The noble Lord said: Clause 26 contains a provision which would remove the opportunity for people to take prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 unless they had the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is one thing to suggest that for offences under the Bill the consent of the DPP should be required, and I have not attempted in my amendment to change that. I can see that with a system of Home Office inspectors, an advisory committee, and so on, there might be some justification for going through the DPP before a prosecution is taken under the Bill. But I can see no justification whatsoever for removing the right to take private prosecutions under the 1911 Act unless it is to avoid a recurrence of a well-known recent prosecution taken by private individuals under that Act. If that is the motive, that is shameful, and I cannot believe that it is.
I hope that the amendment is acceptable. It will leave existing rights as they stand under previous Acts of Parliament but will ensure that under the Bill the consent of the DPP is required before a prosecution is taken. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Did the noble Lord say that he was speaking to Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 as well?
Lord Melchett: No; I thought that I would take them separately.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful. I fear that I may touch on them because that was to be the grouping. Amendment No. 76 removes the requirement that the DPP should bring or consent to any prosecution of an offence under Section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 alleged to have been committed on an animal in a designated establishment. That is wholly unacceptable.
Through Clause 22(5) the Bill provides substantially enhanced penalties for such offences. That is a feature of the widening scope of the Home Secretary's control over what is done to animals in designated establishments. The 1876 Act applied only to animals under experiment. Under the Bill, the care of all animals in these establishments will be controlled by reasons and
790
conditions in licences and certificates of designation. Because of that, and because of the scope, which I am sure the noble Lord will accept exists, for vexatious or ill-informed prosecutions, there must be a counter-balancing protection, which is provided by the role given to the DPP. To remove that, as the amendment proposes, would mean that the enhanced penalty provision could no longer be supported.
Having said that I may touch on the other amendments, there is no need to do so. But I believe that the noble Lord is proposing something that is quite unacceptable.
Lord Melchett: I am worried about that. As the noble Lord will know, the most recent prosecution under the 1911 Act was that taken against the Royal College of Surgeons in respect of the experimental farm, the Buxton Brown Farm, in Kent. As I understand it, in that case the animal concerned was not covered by the previous Act. It was a monkey used for breeding purposes. It is possible that animals at designated establishments may not be covered by the Bill. It will be possible for a designated establishment which is a research establishment and not licensed for breeding and supply also to have animals on the premises which are used for breeding purposes, and I think I am right in saying that they would not be covered by the Bill.
12 midnight.
I think I am also right in saying that a breeding and supply establishment could have animals on the premises that are kept for different purposes. It could also, for example, be a boarding kennel, which we discussed last week, as well as a breeding and supply establishment. It could be supplying animals for the pet trade as well as for licensed procedures. In those circumstances, at least some of the animals on the premises would not be covered by the Act, and some would.
There will be some confusion about this. Some animals may be covered at some time by this Bill and not at other times. To remove the possibility of private prosecutions being brought under the 1911 Act for any animals at a designated establishment must be wrong. It may be that the noble Lord has an argument for saying that the right of private prosecution should not remain in respect of animals covered by licences issued under this Bill. But that is rather a different matter. After all, a designated establishment may have more than one thing going on within it. It may be that a prosecution should be brought under the 1911 Act by other individuals for matters not directly concerned with this Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give me an answer on that point.
Lord Glenarthur: I am not sure that I can go into quite the detail that the noble Lord would like me to. The fact is that the safeguard has been extended in this way partly because of the need to guard against what I know the noble Lord acknowledges to be the possibility of these vexatious or ill-informed prosecutions. That is where the important aspect of this protection really lies and what the noble Lord seeks to remove. I can certainly study the noble Lord's remarks and see whether or not he has a point, and I

791
can correspond with him. I do not believe that I can argue off the top of my head the particular point that the noble Lord raised just now.
Lord Melchett: At this time of night, I am sure that dealing with this question by correspondence would suit everyone. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 16, line 17, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").
The noble Lord said: This and Amendment No. 78 deal with a small point.
Amendment No. 78: Page 16, line 25, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").
It seems to me that, as attention may well be drawn to abuses under this Bill as a result of scientific papers being published, and as scientific papers take a number of years to be published, a limit of three years is too short and one nearer to five years would be more sensible. I know, in case the noble Lord intends to raise it, that scientific papers do not in themselves provide evidence for a court case. I understand that they are simply hearsay and cannot be used in evidence. Nevertheless, publication in scientific papers is often used by those concerned with animal welfare to pinpoint abuses that have taken place.
On the other side, it is often claimed that we should not be worried about what happens in experiments because all of it will become clear when the scientific paper is published. I do not know the average time for publication of a scientific paper in this field. I dare say there are others in your Lordships' House who would have a better idea. I would guess that three years is pretty good going and that some papers would take rather longer to be published. In any event, it seems that some will take at least three years or more and that in these circumstances a time limit of five years would be more appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: The period of three years is the common period for an extension of time limits for prosecutions. The noble Lord wants to increase that period in both instances to five years. Whatever the reasons for the noble Lord wishing to do so, he would succeed, were his amendment to be accepted, in departing in a major way from current practice. I do not see why this Bill concerning animals, and all that goes with it, should be quite so special as to need a major departure. The amendment would propose a substantial and unacceptable change in the balance of prosecution arrangements set out in Clause 25, as well as being unusual. For that reason I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Adrian: On the issue of the length of time of the scientific work it is, of course, like a piece of string that is almost variously lengthened. But on the issue of publication the period from the completion of a piece of scientific work to the appearance of a paper would be much more like a year; very seldom would it be much longer than that. Of course, a piece of work may have gone on and the project may have been allowed to proceed for longer than that. I think it is also the case with regard to anything published in this country
792
that if it has been done in this country, it has had to be authorised by a licence and it will in future be authorised by a project licence and a personal licence.
Lord Melchett: It is reassuring to hear that scientific papers have been published more quickly than I had realised. Perhaps this is not typical. I am interested in the comments that the noble Lord made. I can see some explanation for three years if it is a standard period. I still think that there is an argument for extending it, but I shall consider what the noble Lord said and for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Standard methods of humane killing]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 79:
Page 19, line 27, after ("fishes") insert ("and by the immediate ex-sanguination or immediate destruction of the brain in rodents and birds.")
Lord McGregor of Durris: With the permission of the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has had to leave the Chamber. He asked me, on his behalf and with the leave of the Committee, to indicate that his remaining amendments are not be moved.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 80 to 82 not moved.]
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at nine minutes past midnight.

  FRAUD SQUAD
  FRAUD SQUAD
  SPEED LIMITS: ENFORCEMENT
  SPEED LIMITS: ENFORCEMENT
  CYPRUS: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
  CYPRUS: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
  ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES: REGULATORY MACHINERY
  ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES: REGULATORY MACHINERY
  MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS COMMISSION: REFERENCES
  MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS COMMISSION: REFERENCES
  CEREAL SALES: LEVY PROPOSAL
  CEREAL SALES: LEVY PROPOSAL
  MILK PROCESSORS: STATISTICS
  MILK PROCESSORS: STATISTICS
  HEATING ALLOWANCES
  HEATING ALLOWANCES