Sitting of 15 July 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    PLYMOUTH MARINE EVENTS BASE BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Queen's consent on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    DURHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered.
    Clause 7
      POWER TO CLOSE FOOTPATHS ON RIVER BANKS ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS
      Amendment made: Page 5, line 42, leave out "purpose" and insert "event"—[Mr. Armstrong.]
    Clause 8

      AS TO FREEMEN
      Amendment made: page 8, line 34, leave out 'for" and insert "or"—[Mr. Armstrong.]
      To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Scottish Coalfield (Employment)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the employment situation in the Scottish coalfield.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): The National Coal Board tells me that at 6 July it had 10,216 industrial employees in the Scottish area. This compared with 12,590 at 31 March 1985. The net fall in numbers was therefore 2,374. During that period 2,332 men accepted voluntary redundancy.
    NCB (Enterprises) Ltd. is actively seeking to encourage job creation in Scotland.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Secretary of State recognise the considerable grievance about the Scottish economy and job losses? We should all be happy to record an improvement in industrial relations and output, particularly in Fife, but would that not be enhanced if the Secretary of State used positive forces to ensure that the cases of more than 200 men dismissed during the strike are reviewed by the National Coal Board? At the same time,

    3
    will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to ensure that good industrial relations are brought back to the Scottish coalfields?
    Mr. Walker: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that a review of all the dismissals in Scotland has taken place. I understand that the result of that review will be known shortly.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State make absolutely clear to the House and to the nation that those employed in certain coalfields who have been treated differently from men working in other coalfields will get a fair crack of the whip, like the many Members of Parliament who have fallen foul of the law over the years but have somehow managed to retain their jobs, like his old pal Jim Slater, who cost the taxpayer £70 million——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide of the question on the Scottish coalfield.
    Mr. Skinner:—and is now exploiting people once again?. If he can apply something to Jim Slater, he can——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an abuse of Question Time.
    Mr. Walker: We notice the hon. Gentleman's pathetic utterances. Whenever he has a bad case, he does that. It would be appreciated if the hon. Gentleman showed a little interest in those who suffered from violence during the pit dispute.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome his statement that there will have to be some meetings concerning victimised miners in Scotland? It is an abuse of language to say that there has been a review. There has never been a review.
    Is the Secretary of State aware that employment in the mining industry in Scotland will continue to contract as long as there is no investment in the area? As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have figures from Mr. Wheeler showing that from 1979 to the present time investment in the Scottish coalfield has been reduced. No investment means contraction of the industry.
    Mr. Walker: The Government's investment record in the coal industry is much better than that of the previous Labour Government. Therefore, any comparison of investment must show that in coalfields throughout the country there has been a substantial improvement under this Government—an improvement that did not take place under the previous Labour Government. Whether the comparison is on closures, investment or anything else, this Government's record compares very favourably with that of the previous Labour Government.

    Electricity Consumption (Remote Meter Reading)
    Mr. Freemanasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Electricity Council to discuss the results of trials on the introduction of remote meter reading for electricity consumption.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): As the trials are still in progress, it has not been possible to discuss the results with the chairman of the Electricity Council.
    Mr. Freeman: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the trials are successful, the electronic reading of the
    4
    consumption of gas, electricity and water will be facilitated? Does my hon. Friend also agree that if that can be done, there will be two advantages: first, that the house owner will be able to see, by visual display in the house, exactly what is being consumed and therefore how much is owed; and, secondly, the important principle in all utility consumption that the consumer is paying for what is consumed and therefore metered?
    Mr. Goodlad: As I have said, the trials are still in progress. The indications are that the electricity cable can be successfully used for joint remote reading purposes by all three utilities. Feedback from consumers indicates that they positively welcome the information provided by the display unit.
    If the present trials are successful, the next essential step will be to establish the cost-benefits of the large-scale introduction of such a system in order to justify the investment needed.

    British Gas
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to include in the legislation for the privatisation of the British Gas Corporation provisions covering safety standards for the installation of gas appliances; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan Smith): Yes, Sir. The installation and use of appliances are already the subject of safety regulations, and my officials are discussing them with the Health and Safety Executive.
    Mr. Morris: That is an encouraging answer, but there is concern outside. Is there not an analogy with the privatisation of British Airways, where pilots have maintained safety and will continue to do so? Can the public be totally reassured in the same way that, when gas is privatised, safety will be a major consideration?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, indeed. British Gas has a very good safety record. We want to do everything in the legislation to encourage the highest possible standards.
    Mr. Portillo: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is absolutely no reason to think that the privatisation of British Gas will involve lower safety standards? Does he agree that if allegations are made that privatisation will involve lower safety standards, they can be seen as the usual scare story that always accompanies a privatisation proposal?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is correct. Safety is extremely important, and all those concerned are getting the fullest co-operation in the preparation of the law.
    Mr. Rowlands: If British Gas is privatised, thereby creating a huge private monopoly that is not answerable to the Secretary of State or to this House, will the Minister at least give us a complete assurance that any regulatory body which governs that industry, in regard to safety, prices or other energy matters, will be of a maximum, not a minimum, character?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We all know the hon. Gentleman's background. He wants maximum Government interference in the affairs of British Gas. Privatisation will involve less interference and greater

    5
    efficiency. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, under the arrangements to be made in the legislation, safety standards will be fully safeguarded and encouraged.

    National Coal Board
    Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss future prospects for the industry.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current prospects for the coal industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I regularly discuss future prospects with the chairman, and I am confident that there is a healthy future ahead for the coal industry if it can bring operating costs into line with market opportunities.
    Mr. Orme: Is it true that the basis of the new "Plan for Coal" has been agreed without any negotiations with the appropriate trade unions, and that the plan will lead to the closure of at least 50 pits and the loss of 50,000 jobs in the mining industry?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dormand: In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, is he aware that the relationship between the NCB and the miners is as bad today as it was when the strike ended? As we all want a quick return to good industrial relations in the mining industry, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the NCB chairman to take the pressure off the area directors? Are we to have a continuing dictatorship of the mining industry by MacGregor, or are we to return to local management, which has had such a good record?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's analysis is surprising, because the NCB chairman believes that the maximum power should go to the areas. Mr. Scargill's view, that all the power should go to the centre, is in stark contrast to that. There has not been a single word of criticism by the Labour party of the monstrous change of rules that Mr. Scargill is putting forward.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Coal Board, will he discuss the confrontation last Thursday night between the leader of the Nottinghamshire democratic union and Arthur Scargill, which showed the nation why Nottinghamshire is having to fight for trade union democracy?
    Mr. Walker: It is surprising that the leader of the Labour party, when calling for the unity of the NUM—a perfectly good measure for which to call—does not recognise that all the disunity has been caused by the president of the NUM.
    Mr. Mason: Is the Secretary aware that the major obstacle impeding further progress in the coal mining industry is the sad and sorry state of industrial relations? Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the NCB chairman that, once more, local trade union officials should be allowed to work on regular day shifts and that NUM branch secretaries should have two days on the surface to enable them to deal with trade union affairs? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that MacGregor and some of his area directors have been harsh and vindictive since the strike ended? Finally, is he aware that, unless this vindictiveness ends soon, there will be no stable industrial peace in the coalfield?
    Mr. WalkerMost of the vindictiveness since the dispute ended has been shown by the intimidation of miners who worked. It would be nice to hear the Opposition condemn that. The constant utterances that the only way to achieve anything is by industrial action and taking powers from the regions and from the ballot, which are going on in the NUM at present, are constantly losing customers for the coal industry.
    Mr. Eggar: Are the Government encouraging the NCB to negotiate and recognise the new union? Are they encouraging the NCB to attach particular importance to productivity bargaining?
    Mr. WalkerIt is for the NCB to decide whether to recognise any union. I am sure that it will take that decision in a responsible way. It is vital to the future of that industry and of any other to improve and encourage productivity.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his responsibility is directly in dealing with the chairman of the NCB? Instead of making wild charges against everyone else in the industry, why does he not deal with that problem? Is he trying to tell us that there has been no interference by Mr. MacGregor in the way in which south Wales miners and the south Wales organisation run their affairs?
    Mr. Walker: I should make it clear that Mr. MacGregor wishes power to go to the areas and negotiations to be taken on a regional basis. He believes that that is the correct way in which to run the NCB. I wish that the same applied to the NUM.
    Mr. Skeet: Bearing in mind the coal industry's future, will my right hon. Friend consider strictly limiting the subsidies payable to coal? Will he consider the fact that imports should be related to the price of coal on the world market?
    Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that a mass of good investment could and should take place in the coal industry. That could have good results for the industry and all who work in it. I hope that the unions will concentrate on ensuring that that is done and will encourage it to take place. On imports, this is a matter about which there is no total control at present. There is no doubt that Britain can produce coal to supply our industries and the electricity boards with a sensible basis on which to compete in the world.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: The Secretary of State has told the House about Mr. MacGregor's intentions, but is he satisfied that those intentions are working in practice? Is it not the case that in the past closures have been carried out area by area and that one of the genuine problems of the recent strike was that they were carried out nationally? What guarantee do we have that that will not pertain in future?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should study the position. The recent strike took place because Mr. MacGregor suggested that proposals should be made and examined regionally. If the hon. Gentleman had studied the details of the strike, he would know that what he said was wrong.
    Mr. Benn: Will the Secretary of State cast his mind back to March 1980, when the Cabinet, of which he was a member, gave instructions to Lord Soames that a pardon

    7
    was to be given to every person in Rhodesia after 15 years of rebellion against the Crown and the most horrendous civil war, and that the best way forward in Zimbabwe was through reconciliation? Will he now look back at that pardon ordinance and ensure that similar act of reconciliation is launched in the British mining industry?
    Mr. Walker: I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman seeking reconciliation for the many miners who balloted to work and worked during the strike.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the industry's prospects would be improved if the Labour party made clear its view on the recent changes to the NUM rule book?
    Mr. Walker: In fairness, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has made his view clear. It is only the leader of the Opposition who has not.
    Mr. Strang: Why has the board's policy of victimisation been pursued with such vengeance, especially in Scotland? Is the Secretary of State aware that petitions circulating in the collieries show virtually unanimous support for the men's reinstatement, and that for Church leaders and leading lawyers the matter has become a human rights issue? How much longer must we put up with this injustice in Scotland and elsewhere?
    Mr. Walker: The Opposition are divided on the matter. Some, including those who are sitting near to the hon. Gentleman now, are in favour of reinstating all miners, no matter how guilty of violence they are, and, indeed, of taking miners out of prison. I am glad that at least the Leader of the Opposition condemned that.

    Wind Turbines
    Mr. Spellerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to allocate funds for the installation of wind turbines for agriculture.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): Wind energy is one of the most promising renewable energy sources of electricity generation in the United Kingdom, and my Department's programme, which plans to spend more than £6·5 million this year, is concentrated on large turbines for electricity generation.
    Mr. Speller: The provisions of the Energy Act 1976 have allowed people to erect wind turbines to generate power into the grid. Is my hon. Friend aware that one can produce energy for intensive farm use, such as piggeries, at half the grid price, and yet receive a grant for connecting the farm to the grid system? Should we not think about some form of grant to aid the installation of wind turbines? Is my hon. Friend further aware that as wind turbines have become more popular, rating authorities have not infrequently made a rateable charge per annum equivalent to half the revenue obtained, which is negating all the advantages of the Energy Act?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for rates. I am delighted that my hon. Friend referred to the potential for agricultural applications, because recently my Department funded a study which showed that at present prices and costs nearly 2,000 farms could operate wind turbines economically.

    Energy Efficiency Year
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the resources he proposes to allocate for the promotion of Energy Efficiency Year 1986.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Energy Efficiency Office will be allocating more than £10 million to a range of promotional and demonstration activities. In addition, much greater resources will be provided by a whole range of interested organisations, industries and commercial concerns, which will all join in our national theme of energy efficiency. I anticipate that the overall allocation of resources to energy efficiency year will be substantial.
    Mr. Knox: Are many of the ideas suggested in the energy study competition for schools likely to be implemented during energy efficiency year?
    Mr. Walker: There were many good ideas in that competition. I am glad to say that, shortly after Question Time, I shall be giving tea to the winners on the Terrace and hearing their views.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: In view of the Secretary of State's declared interest in welcoming Hainault high school, some of whose pupils are listening to our proceedings today, does he accept that the clear conclusion of its report is that people will invest in energy conservation if the capital outlay does not take too many years to recoup? Does he further accept that, at local level, we need a facility to allow that to happen, with local authorities as facilitators, the Department as the instigator and millions of people as the beneficiaries? Finally, does he accept that it is his responsibility to instigate such a programme during the next 12 to 18 months?
    Mr. Walker: During the past year enormous progress has been made in obtaining the assistance of voluntary groups, especially low-income groups. We shall do all that we can to spread the success that has been achieved during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend study the position in countries, such as the United States, Denmark and Australia, where the use of home audits has achieved dramatic improvements in energy conservation during the past few years?
    Mr. Walker: The audit system is important, and we hope to make considerable progress in that area during the next 12 months.

    Polkemmet Colliery
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Energy what reply he has sent to West Lothian district council, as a result of the evidence sent to him, following West Lothian district council's inquiry into the future of Polkemmet colliery.
    Mr. David Hunt: The closure of collieries must be a matter for the NCB in consultation with the mining unions, which can choose to appeal through the colliery review procedure, including appeal to an independent body under the amended procedure.
    Mr. Dalyell: Which specific figures in the district council's evidence do the Government dispute?
    Mr. Hunt: Thanks to the hon. Gentleman, I have received a copy of a statement by West Lothian district

    9
    council, which I am considering. I shall respond to it, and to the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, as soon as possible. However, nothing that he has said can alter the fact that Polkemmet was flooded at the end of August 1984 as a result of the withdrawal of safety cover by the NUM. That disgraceful act of vandalism can never be excused.
    Mr. Eadie: The Minister cannot get away with that statement. Polkemmet was flooded because the director of the National Coal Board would not permit middle management to go in and do the job that was being done in every other coalfield. Is the Minister aware that Polkemmet is important to the steel industry, and especially to Ravenscraig? If he accompanied some of his hon. Friends to Ravenscraig, he would discover that it is importing all the coking coal it needs. Does he accept the need for Polkemmet to be reopened and the fact that, technically, it can be done?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has got all those facts wrong.

    Energy Saving (Capital Investment)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Energy what requests for information have been received by the Energy Efficiency Office from local authorities regarding capital investment in energy-saving measures.
    Mr. David Hunt: Local authorities have achieved a great deal, but there is considerable scope for further improvement. The Energy Efficiency Office has had some requests for information about the provision of additional funds for energy efficiency.
    Mr. Beith: How can local authorities make the energy efficiency improvements which will really help their tenants if they cannot spend capital on doing so? Would not the most practical contribution that the Government could make in this area be a relaxation of the capital restraints on local authorities spending money which they already have in the bank from the sale of council houses, in order to improve the energy efficiency of their properties? Will the Department take the initiative in ensuring that that is done?
    Mr. Hunt: Within existing limits, considerable savings can be achieved by local authorities with only modest investment. I hope that, in 1986, which will be energy efficiency year, there will be a substantial increase in this area.
    Mr. Forman: Is the Department taking steps to encourage the production of energy from the combustion of domestic and commercial waste? What progress is being made in that direction?
    Mr. Hunt: The answer is yes. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the considerable scope for improvement in the burning of domestic and animal waste and in the general area of biomass. That featured largely in our recent statement about the allocation of research and development funds for the coming year.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is not the simplest form of energy efficiency for householders, whether tenants or owner-occupiers, the home insulation grant? Is the Minister aware that in 1983–84 there was a 33 per cent. reduction
    10
    in such grants in Wales alone, which has been mirrored in other areas? Would it not be better to give maximum encouragement to home insulation grants?
    Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the history in this area is of an underspend. However, according to the latest figures, there is clear evidence of a substantial take-up of those grants. I hope that this area of funding will be fully spent this year.

    National Coal Board
    Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he will next meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss future investment in the industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board from time to time, to discuss many issues, including future investment in the coal industry.
    Mr. Nellist: Is it not a fact that 11 days ago Mr. Michael Eaton, the National Coal Board spokesman, spoke of 7,000 jobs created by new investment at Selby, at Ashford and at Coventry? When that is set alongside the 70,000 jobs, which is the real target to which MacGregor and the Tory Government wish to cut the industry, does it not show that the last 12 months' struggle of the miners was totally justified, and that any attempt to set up a bosses' union in Nottinghamshire will merely play into the hands of the Secretary of State, MacGregor and the National Coal Board, who wish to run down the coal industry?
    Mr. Walker: I am delighted that during the period in office of this Government investment has been at a much higher level than it was under the Labour Government. The National Coal Board wishes to make major investment in the coal industry. I know how delighted the hon. Gentleman's constituents are at the enormous investment that the board has recently announced for his area, as they were delighted when the majority of people in the Coventry pit returned to work.
    Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that the recent changes in the NUM rule book will persuade existing and potential customers not to use coal as an energy source, whether it be the CEGB, the BSC or industrial users, and that consequently the greatest danger to investment in the National Coal Board is Arthur Scargill's attempt to use the coal mining industry as an instrument of class warfare, a policy which appears to be supported by the leadership of the Labour party?
    Mr. Walker: Since the dispute took place, virtually every utterance by Mr. Scargill has been to say how he intends to use industrial action to the maximum in future. The change in the rules, which gives him power to take industrial action at local level without ballots taking place and without necessarily having the agreement of the local people is again an illustration of the type of war that he wishes to conduct, all of which loses orders for the coal industry, all of which stops our programme to get people to convert to coal, and none of which is condemned by the Opposition.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State agree that investment decisions and the investment record are matters that should and could be considered by the new colliery review procedures? Will he therefore, when he meets the chairman of the board, tell him that it is about time that

    11
    acceptable procedures were introduced, remind him that the board was committed to introduce those last autumn and agree, further, that the Government were certainly also committed?
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows better than most, the board has circulated in great detail its proposal, which very much fits in with all the principles agreed last autumn. The sooner they are implemented, the better I shall be pleased.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the Government's clear commitment to the future of the mining industry, shown throughout the mining strike, does the Secretary of State agree that he should consult the Nottinghamshire miners, if they so wish, about the future of the industry and future investment in the industry? Does he also agree that any party that is seriously intent upon taking power in the country should be able to do that, without fear or favour?
    Mr. Walker: I believe that it is true that the Nottinghamshire miners had no desire to split off from the NUM. They did, however, give due warning that, if the incredible changes of rule proposed by Mr. Scargill took place they would almost certainly have to. At no time in that period was there any attempt by the Labour party to condemn those changes of rule.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Would it not assist investment in the coal industry if the National Coal Board did not have millions of pounds invested in private firms outside the industry?
    Mr. Walker: I think it will be found that those investments are now very small indeed.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State now address himself to the future of the industry? Is it not a fact that an authoritative report has been published which states that 50,000 jobs and 50 pits could be in jeopardy? Will the Secretary of State answer that point?
    Mr. Walker: I have already answered it once. There is no such report that forms the policy of the National Coal Board. Therefore, I have answered it no once, and I answer it no again. If the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the industry, would address himself to the damage that is being done by the leadership of the NUM, he might have some respect.

    Straw
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Energy what research is being carried out to develop the use of straw as an energy producing fuel.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Within my Department's biofuels programme, we are supporting the development of equipment to produce straw briquettes.
    Mr. Yeo: The problem of surplus straw is acute in Suffolk. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Danish experiment in which farmers' co-operatives use straw as fuel for local heating schemes and are able to use the residue for fertiliser?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is considerable potential for the use of straw. It is estimated that the surplus straw currently burnt in fields could have a potential of about 4 million tonnes of coal equivalent a year. There are interesting experiments abroad. My hon. Friend the
    12
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State recently visited, and was impressed by, an installation in Denmark, which my hon. Friend mentioned.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to investigate cases of alleged intimidation and victimisation of miners who continued to work during the recent coal mining dispute; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to investigate cases of alleged intimidation and harassment of miners who continued to work during the recent coal industry dispute; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have taken up with the National Coal Board all such cases brought to my attention and can assure the House that each has received urgent and individual attention.
    Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful and constructive answer. Has he seen reports in the News of the World and The Sun, which show that an alarming number of families of miners who worked throughout the strike have been severely victimised, threatened and had their houses daubed, and that many miners have been prevented from returning to work? Can my right hon. Friend advise miners who want to go to work, and their families, how they might be protected and will be able to convict those appalling miners—[Interruption.]—who deny peoples' right to go to work?
    Mr. Walker: I am surprised at the hilarity on the other side of the House at such appalling circumstances. There is no doubt that there has been a lot of dreadful intimidation. I am glad that the Coal Board has made it clear that anybody who is found guilty of intimidation will be sacked immediately. In some cases that has been done. The board has organised transfers, early retirement and other means of helping those concerned. I hope that both sides of the House will condemn the appalling intimidation that has occurred.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all cases of intimidation are being brought to light? Does he agree that it would be sensible for police in plain clothes or dressed as miners to accompany miners down shafts to get a feel of what is going on? I think that they will find that there is a great deal more intimidation than has been reported.
    Mr. Walker: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is correct. One of the problems of intimidation is that the person being intimidated is often scared to report it. The police and everyone else are endeavouring to do their best to end these totally criminal actions.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Scotland 70 per cent. of those who were dismissed were lay officials or elected members of strike committees? That is a clear example of victimisation of strike organisers. When the right hon. Gentleman says that miners guilty of victimisation should be sacked, how does he answer the case of a miner in Coventry, Clive Ham, who was accused by the Coal Board of victimisation, found not guilty by a court of law but who still remains sacked? Under the right hon. Gentleman's tutelage, the Coal Board has set itself up as judge, jury and executioner.
    Mr. Walker: I should like to hear just one utterance from the hon. Gentleman in condemnation of the appalling violence that has taken place. Those of us who watched some of the events at Bilston Glen on television were only happy that those who caused it should be punished appropriately.
    Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both sides of the House oppose intimidation, no matter where it comes from? Does he agree that if the board and the authorities really want to improve industrial relations in the coalfields, they must first reinstate victimised miners?
    Mr. Walker: The majority of victimised miners are those who worked during the strike, and they have been victimised ever since. As for sackings, each case has been examined individually.

    Alternative Energy Sources
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Energy what funding has been made available for research into alternative energy sources since 1979.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Total research and development expenditure by my Department on renewable energy from 1979–80 to 1984–85 was approximately £76 million. The forecast expenditure for 1985–86 is £14 million.
    Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend is aware that gas, coal and oil are finite sources of energy. Could not a better case be made for the Government reinvesting some of their receipts from fission fuels into research into alternative forms of energy such as tidal, solar and wind energy? When can we expect a go-ahead for the pilot barrage on the Severn estuary?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is worth while studying these alternative forms of energy as my Department is doing by helping to fund research. However, we have to concentrate on research on those sectors which produce the best prospects, and that is what we are doing. As my hon. Friend knows, a study into the Severn barrage is going on now and it is hoped that the report of that study will be received by the end of the year. This will enable decisions to be taken.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Instead of putting money into alternative sources of energy, would it not be a better put money into existing coalfield communities, particularly in my constituency, where we have the highest male unemployment rate in Wales–28 per cent. at present? On Thursday one of the pits will come up for review and will possibly close, with a loss of 570 jobs, pushing male unemployment up to 33 per cent. Is that not intolerable in the 1980s?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not support investment into revewable sources of energy, which is widely supported throughout the country. I refute what the hon. Lady has said about investment in the coal industry, on which the Government have the best record of any Government in recent years. What the hon. Lady says is utterly hypocritical.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Written Questions
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will bring forward proposals to require that written questions are tabled either by the hon. Member in person or personally written and signed by the hon. Member.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): No, Sir.
    Mr. Chapman: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asked a question on 29 April and pointed out that the number of written questions had doubled in the past four years and now cost over £1·5 million to deal with. Will my right hon. Friend have second thoughts about this? Does he agree that my proposal is fair, reasonable and effective, particularly if my right hon. Friend is not minded to recommend a limitation on the number of written questions that any hon. Member can table at any one time?
    Mr. Biffen: Any decision formally to limit the number of questions that an hon. Member may table should appropriately proceed after the matter has been considered by the Procedure Committee.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is much evidence that this procedure is being abused by certain hon. Members? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) is probably the most expensive Member that there has ever been in the House and that his worthless written questions are costing the taxpayer thousands of pounds a year? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take steps to stop that nonsense from that hon. Member?
    Mr. Biffen: That is an invidious accusation. It so happens that I have before me a roll of honour of hon. Members who have tabled the largest number of questions, and I have to say that the top three do not include my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I thank my right hon. Friend for defending me. I ask questions on my behalf, I ask them myself, in my own interest and to prevent others from asking questions relating to my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are other hon. Members who ask many more questions that I do? Should they not be the hon. Members to whom this question is directed?
    Mr. Biffen: Perhaps we should come back from the league table, which I think it indelicate to publish, to the point of the original question. Many hon. Members are uneasy about the practice of hon. Members who sign the question forms and then give them to research assistants to table as they think fit. That is wholly contrary to the spirit of how this place works.
    Mr. Shore: It would be quite wrong if any attempt were made to impose a limit on the number of written questions that can be asked by hon. Members. However, it would be interesting to have the reasons of the Leader of the House for rejecting the proposition that written questions should be tabled by the hon. Member in person. What does he have against it?
    Mr. Biffen: It is a very interesting proposition that written questions should be not only tabled but written out

    15
    by the hon. Member concerned. A very real departure of that magnitude should, I think, proceed after the Select Committee on Procedure has had a chance to examine it.

    Research Assistants
    Mr. Soamesasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will take steps to seek to restrict the access of research assistants to the House facilities.
    Mr. Biffen: Research assistants are already subject to certain restrictions in their access to House facilities. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the second report of the House of Commons (Services) Committee of this Session, which was debated in the House on 12 July.
    Mr. Soames: I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that I was very sad not to be able to be here on Friday. I was attending to my constituents. Does he agree with me that our facilities are being overrun by this monstrous regiment of research assistants? Does he also agree that there is widespread evidence of abuse by some of them? Will he therefore seek radically to recast the rules that guide these procedures?
    Mr. Biffen: A number of suggestions were made in the debate. The Sub-Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) will be considering them, in addition to the original recommendations that were made. I have no doubt that the recommendations that are made during this Question Time will be added to those that were made in the debate on Friday last.
    Mr. Beith: If the Leader of the House were to seek to go beyond the sensible recommendations of the Services Sub-Committee, which were debated on Friday, could he not then be accused of seeking to ensure that Ministers are extensively and well advised, but that those who seek to challenge and question Ministers do not have the benefit of such advice?
    Mr. Biffen: The usual charge is that Ministers are ill advised.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some Members of this honourable House are willing to give out passes like confetti? Should there not be a limit to the number of so-called research assistants which so-called hon. Members can inflict upon us all? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".]
    Mr. Biffen: That is one of the points that was made in the debate on Friday last.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think the House approves of the phrase "so-called hon. Members". Every Member here is an hon. Member.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Leader of the House aware that I am not surprised that the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the chairman of the Tory party does not need research assistants? On the other hand, those hon. Members who are in the serious business of politics—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I take the view that the hon. Member is very much in the serious business of politics.
    Mr. Boyes: Those hon. Members who are in the serious business of politics and who are trying to solve the complex social problems that have been caused by the reactionary politics of this Government need as many
    16
    research assistants as possible to help us. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an example, the new board and lodgings regulations are causing massive problems both in my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members.
    Mr. Biffen: I think that we are all beginning to get a slight touch of July fever. The Sub-Committee of the Services Committee will be considering this matter. Doubtless it will consider the hon. Gentleman's point, along with others.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members, who find that the increasing number of lobby groups with access to word processors are drowning us with correspondence, are very grateful for our research assistants? I suspect that most of the difficulties that are encountered by research assistants, and come from them, are attributable to the fact that hon. Members do not brief them in the practices of this House as well as they should.
    Mr. Biffen: I take note of what I am sure is one of the relevant factors. I undertake to draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Deptford to the points that have been raised this afternoon. They will be important to him when he makes his further studies.

    New Telephone Exchange
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the reasons for the decision to purchase a new telephone exchange system for the Palace of Westminster and the criteria which were used to determine that all hon. and right hon. Members and their secretaries should be provided with new telephones.
    Mr. Biffen: I refer my hon. Friend to the first report of the Services Committee in Session 1980–81, in which the reasons for a new exchange being required are set out at length. New telephones are required because, among other things, the existing ones will not work with the new exchange.
    Mr. Bruinvels: I read the report before tabling this question. To provide the House with these so-called wonder phones with alarms, digital clocks and calculators, not just for hon. Members, but for secretaries as well, seems to be a gross expense, bearing in mind that it will cost £2,037,000 to provide those facilities. Is my right hon. Friend able to say what will happen to the old phones?
    Mr. Biffen: The old phones, which were rented, will be returned to British Telecommunications and subsequent use will be made of them. I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety that we should not spend more on this than is strictly necessary, but I question whether a secretary should somehow or other have a lesser telephone facility than an hon. Member.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us are thankful that we are at long last to have a decent telephone system to replace the decrepit one from which we now suffer, one that has constant malfunctions and gets wrong numbers? It is a welcome step that this House is at last being dragged into the 20th century in at least one area of modern technology.
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure that that was intended to be helpful. We are to have a new telephone system because

    17
    the demand is such that a new exchange must be obtained. It is not true to say that the present telephone facilities are archaic and impede us in doing our job properly.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Parryasked the Minister for the Civil Service when he nexts expects to meet the Civil Service trade unions; and what matters he expects to discuss.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I will be meeting representatives of some of the Civil Service unions on Wednesday 17 July to discuss, at their request, the pay of senior civil servants.
    Mr. Parry: When the Minister meets the unions, will he discuss trade union membership? Will he state whether it is true that the draft new Civil Service handbook no longer encourages civil servants to join the trade union of their choice? If that is so, is it not inferference with the Civil Service trade unions?
    Mr. Hayhoe: On Wednesday we will be discussing the pay of senior civil servants. If the unions want to discuss other matters, I am sure that suitable opportunities can be arranged. I understand that the handbook is in draft and is being discussed with the trade unions.
    Mr. Forman: When my right hon. Friend meets the Civil Service trade unions, will he make it clear to them that, while it is necessary to keep firm control of public sector pay, including Civil Service pay, all members of the Government recognise the quality and dedication of the work done by the Civil Service?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister refute the suggestion made in an article in The Times recently by Mr. David West, that the reduction in the numbers of civil servants has come about as a result of reductions in work? Will he also comment on the suggestions by Mr. West that the Government's systems management in the Civil Service is woefully inadequate?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The article in The Times by Mr. West was misleading and inaccurate in a number of ways. His direct experience is many years out of date. Staff inspectiion, which was his particular interest, has an important role to play, but the significant reduction in the number of civil servants from 732,000 in May 1979 to under 600,000 today has been achieved in many other ways. I am happy to pay tribute to the Civil Service, which has contributed considerably to an increase in efficiency.
    Dr. McDonald: When the Minister meets the Civil Service unions, will he also discuss with them the fact that, despite their continued efforts, the loss of 1,000 Customs and Excise officers since 1979 has contributed to the 750 per cent. increase in heroin smuggling? Will he agree with them that the cut in Customs staff has been extremely irresponsible? Will he admit that the 50 per cent. increase in staff for special investigation will be of limited use because they will be redeployed from Customs staff elsewhere?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That is not a matter that is likely to be discussed on Wednesday when I meet the Civil Service
    18
    unions. As I said, we shall be discussing the pay of senior civil servants. Perhaps the hon. Lady did not hear my original answer. The hon. Lady is incorrect in suggesting that the reduction in the number of uniformed staff has led to an increase in the amount of heroin coming into this country. She should be aware of the significant increase under this Government of the number of Customs and Excise specialist investigation staff. She should also pay tribute to the significant successes that have been achieved as a result of that.

    Private-Public Sector Contacts
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards encouraging contacts between senior civil servants and leading City business men.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Such contacts form a natural part of the work of many senior civil servants. The interchange of staff between the Civil Service and the private sector has been encouraged over the years by successive Governments as a means of improving mutual understanding between the Government and industry.
    Mr. Dalyell: What response have Ministers made to the serious statements contained in an article in the Daily Star on 13 June concerning the case of Hilda Murrell and highlighting an alleged relationship between the distinguished Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, and Sir Dallas Bernard, a director of Zeus Securities?
    For what particular purposes does the taxpayer finance the activities of Zeus Securities? For what purposes does the taxpayer finance the activities of Mr. Gary Murray? I know that a writ has been issued by Sir James Starritt in relation to the article, but ought there not to be a Government statement on these alarming statements?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That supplementary question goes way outside the original question. However, thinking that the hon. Gentleman might seek practically to abuse the procedures of the House in that way, I have had inquiries made. While Sir Robert Armstrong has a long-standing personal friendship, though by no means a close one, with Sir Dallas Bernard, he has at no time had any official dealings either with Sir Dallas Bernard as a director of Zeus Security Consultants, or in any other capacity, or with Zeus Security Consultants and he did not know until he read the article in the Daily Star on 13 June that Sir Dallas was a director of that company. I think it wrong that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) should peddle and give credence to tittle tattle of this kind by his supplementary questions in the House.
    Sir Dudley Smith: On a far more important question, is my right hon. Friend aware that the relationship between senior civil servants and the whole industrial spectrum is far better than it was, for example, two decades ago, but that it is still capable of improvement and that we have many lessons to learn from a number of other countries, not least Japan?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I agree with my hon. Friend. Encouraging contacts between the Civil Service and industry and commerce is of value to both the public and private sectors.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Merit Pay
    Mr. Eggarasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress in introducing merit pay into the Civil Service.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The experimental programme of performance bonuses, which I announced in December last, is now being implemented in Government Departments. The first payments of bonuses will be made during the 1985–86 financial year.
    Mr. Eggar: Is not it a pity that the new programme is restricted to the open structure? Should we not be working more rapidly towards being able to make merit payments throughout the Civil Service?
    Mr. Hayhoe: This is an experimental programme, and I am sure my hon. Friend will think it right that it should be assessed, monitored and evaluated carefully before any extension can be decided on. But I ought to make it clear that I and my officials are prepared to discuss extensions if they are proposed by the unions.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: If merit pay were introduced for Ministers, would not most of them starve?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman must have been reflecting on his own ministerial experience.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How does the Minister justify the widening pay differential between civil servants and people employed in the private sector?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The pay settlement made with the Civil Service this year, which gives an average of 4·9 per cent. to the whole of the Civil Service, is, in the circumstances of the time, fair and reasonable.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Terrace (Teas)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Lord Privy Seal how many teas were served on the Terrace of the House of Commons in the summers of 1955, 1965, 1975 and 1984, respectively; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Biffen: The number of teas served on the Terrace during summer 1984 was 4,894. Information for the earlier years mentioned in my hon. Friend's question is no longer available.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of people wishing to have strawberries and cream on the Terrace of the House of Commons far exceeds the supply of teas available? That being so, will he seek to extend the season during which these teas are available in suitable facilities, perhaps starting at Easter rather than at Whitsun? [HON. MEMBERS: "No strawberries."] If strawberries are not ready by then, could not we have cherries—Waterloos or Wellingtons perhaps.
    Mr. Biffen: I am not aware of this imbalance, but I shall draw it to the attention of the person who matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving).

Famine Relief
Mr. Tam Dalyell (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will urgently make available additional lorries to famine relief organisations in Ethiopia and Sudan.
3.34 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): I have decided to provide £1·6 million to Save the Children Fund for the purchase of 40 heavy trucks for Sudan. A further £400,000 will cover local bodywork for the 60 Leyland trucks already presented to SCF, continuing costs of their logistics team, and 10 Landrovers.
I announced on 10 June that we were providing £750,000 for trailers and truck hire costs in Ethiopia. I shall be reviewing the transport position when I arrive in Ethiopia tomorrow.
Mr. Dalyell: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's visit to Ethiopia and the provision of more transport, which we were told over the weekend was still necessary. But what should I say to constituents of mine who see £40 million-worth of mostly suitable trucks sitting in the car park of British Leyland at Bathgate and hear at the same time on the radio that after all the exchanges in the House there is still a shortage of trucks both for the Sudan and for Ethiopia?
Mr. Raison: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tells his constituents that, for the 40 heavy trucks, the provision of which I have just announced, we shall be going to British Leyland first to see whether it can provide them.
Dr. David Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether this is additional to the aid budget or simply, as has happened before, a transfer from one part of the aid budget to another part? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the possibility of seconding British Railways personnel to Sudan, where the railway network is in a critical state and needs skilled people—as do the ports?
Mr. Raison: The money comes out of the sum that I have set aside for dealing with this very serious problem in Africa, and that is as it should be. We have already provided expert personnel to help solve this very difficult problem with the railway line in the Sudan. We shall continue to do everything possible to make sure that the railway line operates as effectively and as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although the extra transport is welcomed, is it not deplorable that, as revealed by my right hon. Friend in answer to me on Friday, only 43 per cent. of the food aid promised by the EEC at Dublin last December has been delivered? Is my right hon. Friend willing to discuss with his colleagues how the pledge made to drought-stricken Africa might now be kept?
Mr. Raison: It is not deplorable. There is at present enough food in the ports of the Sudan and Ethiopia and there is no point in piling more food into those ports until it is possible to distribute it. The European Community pledges will be of the greatest value in the months to come.
22
Let us remember that this is not a short-term problem but one that will last for many months yet. Thank goodness the European Community is doing so much to help.
Mr. Torn Clarke: In view of the Minister's reference to the Save the Children Fund, has he had time to consider last Thursday's request by that organisation that the Government should rescind their decision to withdraw the Hercules aircraft from Ethiopia and Sudan? Has he responded to that request, and will he announce his answer in Ethiopia tomorrow?
Mr. Raison: As I said, when I go to Ethiopia tomorrow I shall be reviewing the transport situation there. The great need now is for road transport. The RAF is doing a splendid job, but when the rainy season is over it may not be necessary for it to continue that job.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend be having any contact in Ethiopia with the military authorities, who seem to throw all the people out of the camps, though their Government deny that they have instructed the army to do that? Will he see that the useful aid that is given is not frustrated by being directed to camps that are then emptied by the army?
Mr. Raison: I do not expect to have discussions with the military authorities, but I certainly shall be having discussions with Ethiopian Ministers. The whole question of the effective use of the aid that is being provided will, of course, feature prominently in those discussions.
Mr. Tom Cox: The Minister has rightly referred to Sudan and Ethiopia. May we have an assurance that the problems faced by Somalia will not be forgotten? Somalia also has a famine, it has also had many refugees coming across its borders and it also needs help.
Mr. Raison: I recognise that Somalia has difficult problems. The European Community will be able to help Somalia, and we shall certainly bear its needs in mind.
Mr. Bowen Wells: My right hon. Friend has provided considerable aid by way of transport—lorries and aircraft—in helping to deal with the terrible drought, and he is to be congratulated on that. Does he agree, however, that the current need is not for more trucks—in view of the rainy season in the Sudan, when trucks cannot get through the desert, which is flooded—but for research into, and support for, arid agriculture, so as to find a way in which the people can plant crops and reap them year after year, to avoid this problem in future? Will he therefore review the statement, published today, that he made in reply to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which he said that he did not believe that additional money should be made available? As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, my right hon. Friend has transferred money. In so doing, has he not deprived his Department of the ability to enter into long-term and vital commitments?
Mr. Raison: The short-term and long-term needs are of the greatest importance. We have found the money for the short-term needs out of the contingency fund, from the shortfall and by reallocating the food aid programme, and that has been a wise and successful policy. For the long-term, we provide substantial resources for development, including the development of agriculture, and we are spending well over £200 million a year on development in sub-Saharan Africa.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that I granted the private notice question on the question of additional lorries for famine relief.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister respond to the remarkable generosity of people to the Live Aid concerts at the weekend by agreeing to match pound for pound the amount contributed by the British public following the Wembley concert?
Mr. Raison: I entirely share the view that the Live Aid concert was a magnificient occasion, and everybody who helped to put it together deserves the greatest possible congratulations. In the last financial year we provided £95 million of famine-related aid. This year we are targeting to provide another large amount. That, together with the long-term development aid that we are providing, adds up a very significant sum indeed, and certainly not one about which I need be apologetic.
Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the point he made about the need for lorries and the fact that in the long-term we shall have to replace them demonstrates the need for a continuing and expanding programme? Is he aware that there would be support in all parts of the House and throughout the country for an increase in the budget spent on the Overseas Development Administration of the Foreign Office?
Mr. Raison: I believe that there is great concern throughout the country about the events in Africa, and that is as it should be. We are, of course, bound by our public expenditure policy. However, I can tell the House that within my budget I shall do everything possible to ensure that we apply our resources where they will be of most effect—and Africa, of course, takes very high priority in that.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is there not a very significant contrast between the voluntary money raised by the amazing Live Aid concerts at the weekend and the attitude of the Government? As there is quite clearly tremendous resonance among the public for support for aid to Ethiopia and the Sudan, why do not the Government look at ways and means of forgoing the money that will go to them from the concerts, which would pay for lorries for Ethiopia and the Sudan?
Mr. Raison: I believe that a sympathetic view is being taken about the tax aspect. Surely the point is that it is uniquely a chance for people to show directly that they wish to contribute. It is entirely admirable that there should be so much voluntary contribution in addition to the large amounts provided by the same people through their taxes. I think that we have nothing of which to be ashamed.
Mr. Colin Moynihan: The whole Chamber echoes the outstanding admiration for and support of all participants in the Live Aid concerts. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that spares for trucks are sent not only in the impending rainy season but going right into next season, which is essential?
Mr. Raison: I think that my hon. Friend is right. Throughout, I have taken the view that the provision of spares for transport is one of the most valuable things that we can do. I certainly do not intend to turn my back on that policy.
Mr. Dave Nellist: While the Minister basks in the reflected glory of the weekend's events at Wembley and Philadelphia, may I ask whether he considers it hypocritical of his Government to run down the bus and truck industry of this country, losing 40,000 car and other related jobs in the city of Coventry during the past 10 years, while at the same time building up EEC food stocks in that city to the tune of £3 million, and to the tune of many hundreds of millions of pounds throughout the country as a whole? Instead of platitudes from the Box, why do we not have a plan for building trucks to take the surplus food from Britain and Europe to where it is needed in Africa?
Mr. Raison: The very substantial contribution of food by the European Community comes, of course, from exactly those surpluses. Without them, it would be very much harder to find the food.
Mr. Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, a short time ago, the Ethiopian Government promised that they would release a large number of military trucks for use in transporting grain. Recent reports suggest that they have not been wholly forthcoming in meeting that commitment. When my right hon. Friend is in Addis Ababa, will he make it clear to the Ethiopian authorities that the international community expects the Ethiopian Government to co-operate wholeheartedly with Kurt Jansson and the United Nations authorities if they are to continue to receive the same levels of support from the international community that they have received hitherto.
Mr. Raison: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. It is one of the most important topics that I shall be discussing in Addis Ababa this week.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does not the Minister agree that the transport crisis was both predictable and predicted some nine months ago? Have not we and the EEC failed in this crucial last stage of delivery from the ports to the people who actually need help?
Will the Minister now consider air-freighting spares for the lorries? Is he convinced that there are adequate teams of mechanics who will be available on the spot to deal with the lorries? Will he reconsider the withdrawal of the Hercules, a point already put to him? Will he give the present position of the trains for which our British manufacturers tendered in January and to which the slow EEC bureaucracy agreed only in June?
Is not part of the tragedy, as has been mentioned, the contrast between the fantastic response of our people and that of the Government, who have not matched that response, who have given not a penny extra in aid in spite of the crisis, and who in real terms in this year, compared with last year, are giving £30 million to £40 million less in Government aid, which almost wipes out the amount of private money given?
Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are predictable and misleading. We have made the provision of spares a priority throughout. Nobody could have worked harder in trying to help with the transport problems, particularly on the railways, where we have made an exceptional effort. Our RAF Hercules team is unique. It has carried out operational sorties every day since November.
Of course transport difficulties are great, but we must remember that we are not the Government of Ethiopia or

25
Sudan. Those Governments take the ultimate decisions. We are doing all that we can to help them, but we cannot take over the running of their railway systems.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that more transport will be made available to Ethiopia and Sudan, but has internal security in Tigré and Eritrea improved, since the Ethiopian Government's genocidal policy is, to a large extent, the root cause of the misery?
Mr. Raison: As the House knows, the civil war which has been raging in Ethiopia—in Tigré and Eritrea—is one problem which has made it so difficult to get aid to those people who most desperately need it. I shall be talking about that problem during my visit.

Trustee Savings Banks (Ownership)
3.46 pm
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I wish to;raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order of which I have given you cursory preliminary notice about the Trustee Savings Banks Bill, which is due to be debated this evening. The three branches to my argument will be related to conspiracy to deceive the House, hybridity and whether the sub judice rule applies.
When the Bill was introduced, the Government White Paper stated in paragraph 4·1 that there was doubt about the ownership of the trustee savings banks. The Bill was promoted, not directly by the Government, but at the request of the trustee savings banks through their central board. It was said that the legislation was required for two reasons—to settle doubt and to create a new framework for the operation of the banks.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury told the House earlier this year:
"The TSBs are not owned by their employees or depositors."
Later the Economic Secretary said:
"There is not just uncertain ownership; there is a lack of ownership of the TSBs".—[Official Report, 14 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 35, 70.]
On the basis of the White Paper and statements by the Minister, we assumed that investigations would be made. This morning a copy of a memorial to counsel and the opinion of counsel dated April 1979 came into my hands. It was by John Murray, QC, to the trustee savings banks' central board about the status of the ownership of TSB (Scotland). I understand that the TSB central board asked for similar opinion of counsel about the status of ownership of the banks in England, Wales and the Channel Islands. I cannot say what the outcome of that will be.
The opinion was specifically requested by the TSB central board and the legislation promoted by the Government is based upon it. Counsel was asked to state:
"Who owns a Trustee Savings Bank and in particular:—What is the nature of the relationship between a Trustee Savings Bank and its various categories of customers?."
I shall leave with you, Mr. Speaker, a copy of that statement, but since all my points are based upon the ownership issue I shall quote one more passage. When relating to legal cases, counsel said:
"In accordance with the general rules for Scots law of unincorporated associations therefore the assets were to be treated as the property of the members."
On the following page, counsel went on——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is really making a speech of the kind that he might make in a debate. Will he put his point of order to me?
Mr. Wilson rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice that he intended to raise the matter. I have looked into it carefully and I can give him the answer.
Mr. Wilson: Considering that I intend to allege a conspiracy to deceive the House, I think it worth while to give the background to what has happened. I shall encapsulate it briefly and move on to my three points.
On page 8 of his opinion, counsel said:
"I may be thought to have passed too easily over the question 'who are the members'. I do not think that in Scots law this matter admits of much doubt. The members, in my opinion, are these persons who agree to associate for the relevant purposes, and this they do by depositing a sum with the bank under the relevant conditions".

27
Further down the page, counsel says:
"In my opinion the members for the time being, subject to the qualifications I have mentioned earlier, own a TSB."
There is one major trustee savings bank affected, and that is the one covered by the legislation.
At the very end of his opinion, on page 12, counsel says:
"But I cannot accept as correct the view that a depositor in dissolution is merely entitled to the return of his deposit and interest at some stipulated rate. The measure of his entitlement is related to produce, not interest, and the TSB is debarred from deriving any benefit from the deposits or produce."
Counsel then adds that the provisions of the relevant Act strongly support that view.
Finally, counsel says:
"It would suggest that the only funds held by a TSB not falling to be handed over to the depositors on dissolution will be the 'produce' of sums deposited on a non-interest bearing basis. For the avoidance of doubt I should state that I see no reason why produce should not include 'capital' as well as `income' produce."
"Produce" is a technical term in Scotland for the reserves of the Trustee Savings Bank.
Either the Trustee Savings Bank's senior trustees have sat on a legal opinion and failed to inform the Government, or the Government were informed of the legal opinion obtained in Scotland and chose to ignore the significance of it and thus mislead the House.
The former Economic Secretary to the Treasury from April 1981 to 1983 is now a director of the TSB central board.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is alleging certain things that the Government may or may not have done. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Wilson: The point of order—I have already elaborated on the background—is on a matter that is dealt with in "Erskine May" on page 148 of the 1983 edition, where it says that it is an offence to mislead the House.
We have statements on record by a Minister purporting to say that there are no owners of a bank, whereas he is promoting a Bill whch seeks to give away the assets of that bank to third parties without consultation with the owners. We have been given certain information, and it is either correct or incorrect. Therefore, it is a very serious matter, particularly if we recognise that the owners of the Trustee Savings Bank——
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are all matters that are concerned with the debate on the Trustee Savings Banks Bill and with the Government. They are not matters for me. The hon. Gentleman must now put his point of order to me so that I can deal with it.
Mr. Wilson: I was doing that, Sir. I was saying that here we are dealing with a bank which is owned by working people, and the resources of which are likely to be disposed of to speculators.
The whole affair of the TSB is either a contempt of the House or a breach of privilege involving the conspiracy to which I referred. It may go further than that, beyond this House.
My second point of order relates to hybridity.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going well beyond a point of order. If he considers that it is a
28
matter of privilege and writes to me in the usual way, I shall look into it with the greatest care, as I have already fully looked into the matters concerning the Bill to which he has drawn my attention. I think that I should perhaps now rule upon it.
I have considered the point——
Mr. Wilson rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman got into touch with me to put his point of order and I have looked into it very carefully. He is making the speech that he would make in the debate if he were called. I hope that he may be called.
Mr. Wilson rose——
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member put his point very succinctly, please?
Mr. Wilson: My second point of order relates to hybridity, which flows from the whole question of ownership. Until now there has been no problem in relation to this aspect in this public Bill, as the assets of all the trustee savings banks were not appropriated to some other ownership. We now find that, in Scotland at least, ownership could be with the depositors. I shall quote from "Erskine May" to assist you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. This is the first time he has drawn my attention to the point that the Bill might be hybrid. It is normal practice for hon. Members to give Mr. Speaker notice of possible hybridity so that he can look into that aspect. I undertake to look into this matter and to rule upon it when the House considers the Bill. I cannot deal with this aspect now.
Mr. Wilson: I shall be very grateful to you, for that ruling, Mr. Speaker. I received this opinion this morning from counsel in Edinburgh and I have only just arrived in the House. I sent a letter to you specifically to give you notice. I am grateful for your statement on that point.
May I mention one last matter? There is a question of the Bill being sub judice because of an action in court. We have information about ownership which completely changes the whole picture of legislation. I am raising this point of order because we may be in danger of perpetrating a scandal on the reputation of the House by seeking at this stage to deal with legislation that is sub judice and may be subject to subsequent inquiry.
Mr. Speaker: I have looked carefully into the matter to which the hon. Member drew my attention. I remind the House of the terms of the sub judice resolution of 23 July 1963 which is prefaced by the words
"subject … to the right of the House to legislate on any matter."—[Official Report, 23 July 1963; Vol. 681, c. 1417.]
There cannot be any question of debate on the Lords' amendments to the Trustee Savings Banks Bill being affected by the sub judice rule.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to hybridity. You were a Member, Mr. Speaker, when a previous occupant of the Chair had to face a similar situation with respect to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. He had to make a study of that matter and the debate on that legislation changed dramatically because of his ruling.
The first matter raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East concerned Lord Bruce-Gardyne and one or two others

29
having their fingers in the pie and obviously making a killing. The second point on the ownership argument is one of which you should take account, as your predecessor did. In view of the previous decision on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, it would be advantageous for those of us who were not made aware of this problem until the past few minutes if the debate on the Trustee Savings Banks Bill were suspended and dealt with at a later stage. You would be able to make a ruling, Mr. Speaker, and we could delve more deeply into what could be a question of fraud and conspiracy by Government Members either in this place or in the other.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is always a great supporter of the Chair, and I am most grateful to him for his advice. I have already said that I shall look into the matter. I shall certainly do so before we consider the Bill.

American Bar Association (Visit)
3.59 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is brief. I am sure that you are aware that the facilities of the House have been severely interfered with today because of the presence of hundreds of visiting Americans. The Welsh room has been turned into a first-aid room, without prior consultation with Welsh Members. The parking facilities for disabled Members have been converted into a portaloo for the visiting Americans. In future, Mr. Speaker, will you give us notice of such changes? Are we being well paid for the loss of facilities?
Mr. Speaker: I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Services Committee. I was not aware of the point that the hon. Lady raises. I am aware that the American Bar Association is holding its meeting here, because I was present this morning in Westminster Hall.

American Bar Association (Visit)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the motions relating to draft statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 10) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 1027) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Opposition Day
[18TH ALLOTTED DAY] [SECOND PART]
Opposition Day

  National Health Service (Pay)
  3.59 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: From one argumentative Scot to another I beg to move,
  That this House believes that district health authorities and Scottish health boards should not be expected to find the extra resources in the current financial year that are now necessary to implement the Government's decisions arising out of the recommendations of the pay review bodies; and further believes that if no extra money is provided from the Contingency Reserve there will be a damaging in and unacceptable reduction in real terms in standards of health care.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister
  Mr. Kennedy: In moving the motion, our task and objective is to highlight the disgraceful state of affairs into which the Government are plunging the National Health Service and important branches of it by rather inadequate and third-rate stealth, and to offer a constructive solution to the present financial paralysis facing many health authorities and the nation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), in a question to the Prime Minister, asked whether
  "any pay settlement for the nurses which is above 3 per cent. must be paid for by savings inside the National Health Service? … Is that not an appallingly unfair way to treat a dedicated profession?"—[Official Report, 4 June 1985; Vol. 80,c. 153.]
  If the Minister for Health speaks this afternoon, he may have to behave more in his capacity as a Queen's Counsel than a Privy Councillor. The more one studies the Government's financing of the NHS, the more one realises that the description applied to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous Tory Government could well be applied to the Minister for Health, who displays all the attributes of a barrister trying his best to defend his client without realising that his client has seen the light and changed his plea to guilty.
  The unfairness which my hon. Friend tried to highlight was that the lack of extra cash to fund the rewards would lead to job reductions. The complete lack of extra cash in the aftermath of the pay review body recommendations will, as an inevitable and direct consequence of ministerial decisions, lead to a lowering of health provision and a decline in the quality of patient care. That is why the alliance describes the Government's NHS policy as cuts by stealth at the expense of patients. Today we seek to highlight the plight of the NHS, and to persuade the Government to make extra cash available from the contingency reserve.
  It is worth putting into context the role and position of nurses within both the NHS and the community as a whole. Who better to quote than the Minister? In a debate on the NHS, referring to the nursing profession's pay increase, the Minister said:
  "The Government have made it available to them, because we recognise their abstention from industrial action and the fact that the country, the Government, and the patients in particular, owe them a great obligation. It is irrefutable that it is good news for nurses to have major pay increases, in the second instalment, particularly for the staff nurses and ward sisters. It is irrefutable

  31
  that it is a major advance for the nursing profession to have a lasting system."—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 216.]
  Those are noble and honourable sentiments, which will command support from both sides of the House. It is sad that, characteristically, the Minister is not living up to his rhetoric at the Dispatch Box in his funding of the NHS.
  The Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services have confirmed that the cost of the pay review body awards would be about £240 million in England in 1985–86. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) who is responsible for health in Scotland, is present, and I shall deal with the Scottish position later. DHSS Ministers make great play of the fact that this year they are cash allocating an additional £500 million, which is equivalent to 5·5 per cent., to branches of the NHS. They refer in particular to the hospital and community health services, and rightly so. However, we must consider what the figure means when it is analysed carefully and beyond the rhetoric of Ministers.
  The January 1985 public expenditure White Paper notes that the hospital and community health services will account for more than 70 per cent. of the NHS budget. In 1985–86, current expenditure will increase by 5·8 per cent. over last year's total. The inflation rate, which the Government estimate at 3·5 per cent. and which will produce a notional real terms increase of 2·3 per cent., reflects the Government's general illustrative assumption of a 3 per cent. pay rise in the public sector and a 5 per cent. general price rise in the NHS sector. Those figures are taken directly from the Government's White Paper.
  However, there is an important qualification and, for the purposes of the debate, a fundamental point to be made. The assumptions about wage and price increases are fundamental to the forecasts, because the 2·2 per cent. real growth figure has disappeared as a result of the 6 June doctors and nurses pay review body reports. The additional pay costs in 1985–86 for cash-limited NHS services will be 5·4 per cent. for doctors and 5·6 per cent. for nurses. The inflation rate or relative price effect estimate has been pushed up to nearly 6 per cent.—I shall return to that figure and quote the Minister shortly—according to the Social Services Select Committee's sixth report, which was published on 22 June. That would mean a real terms decrease of about 0·3 per cent., which is 0·2 per cent. higher than what the DHSS now concedes was one tenth of a 1 per cent. decrease in 1984–85.
  Those detailed figures are based on a careful and serious analysis of the projections and on hard accurate statistics, which the Government have made available in their forecasting and White Paper. The figures are extremely damaging because they point the way to further reductions in patient care and health service facilities to fund the costs of legitimate and well-deserved pay increases for the professions allied to medicine—nursing, health visiting and midwifery.
  Mr. Richard Hickmet rose
  Mr. Richard Tracey rose
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall take my pick, but it is something of a Hobson's choice.
  Mr. Hickmet: That is not a nice way to describe my hon. Friend and me.
  The hon. Gentleman talks about further cuts. Why does he expect further cuts when, since May 1979, the NHS budget has increased by 20 per cent., there are 55,000 more nurses, 6,000 more doctors and dentists, more outpatients and inpatients have been treated, and there are more day patients and home visits? Why does he speak of further cuts when that is manifestly not the case? Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government's record on the NHS is the finest since the war?
  Mr. Kennedy: I have been a Member of the House for only two years, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who entered at the same time as me, that the gullibility of Tory Back-Bench Members never ceases to amaze me. Let us consider the real world and leave the Thatcherite monetarist universe which the hon. Gentleman seems to occupy. Let us consider what those in the front line of the service say about the figures. The hon. Gentleman did not listen—[Interruption.] The public school boys on the Treasury Bench should keep quiet, because we are quoting their figures.
  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) did not listen to what I said. When he talks about last year's figures, he should remember what I said about a 0·1 per cent. cut in real terms, which, on current predictions, will be trebled this year. That will be extremely damaging.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the National Association of Health Authorities is aware of the difficulties and realities of providing health care. The Minister for Health visited Cardiff last month, and much good that did the Tory party when the voters were asked for their opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] It was not cheap. I was an expensive mistake for the Tory party to send the Minister to address the annual conference of the National Association of Health Authorities. To be fair to the Minister, we should argue on his terms this afternoon and use his words as the parameters within which the debate should be conducted. When the general manager of West Lancashire health authority asked him what the funding consequences would be for next year's allocation, the Minister said:
  "I do not accept that the award poses any threat to standards of care."
  Within the NHS, the Minister's is a lone voice compared with what is being said in the authorities of England and Wales and in the Scottish boards. He continued:
  "I just hope we are not looking too far ahead"—
  it is good to know that the Health Service is being governed by ad hoc expediency
  "with the implications of this"—
  —[Interruption.] Those are the Minister's words. Hon. Members should heckle him, not me. The Minister continued:
  "After all, we have until next February to fund the full award and I hope we will not hear about cutbacks, which I frankly regard as the routine small talk of NHS politics and not necessary in a well-managed and well-run health service."
  That demonstration of arrogance and insensitivity to those who must make the painful choices that will be made necessary by having to fund the nurses' pay award is extremely disturbing.
  We should examine what some of those who live in the real world said in response to the Minister's comment. The

  33
  national association passed a motion calling on the Government fully to meet the costs of the award. The member of Salford health authority who moved the motion said that her authority had already used its efficiency savings—no doubt the Minister will try to tell us about those—and faced a burden of £1 million for wage claims during next year. The person who seconded the motion, who came from North Tees authority, said that patient care would suffer if authorities had to find the cash for awards. Simply to balance the budget, his authority would have to make a 2 per cent. cut, and he referred to this as "crisis management" leading to inefficiency. I ask the House to compare that statement with the Minister's statement that the routine small talk of NHS politics is
  "not necessary in a well-managed and well-run health service."
  We now know who realises the damage that will be caused by the Government's decision in relation to the nurses' pay award.
  However, the matter goes deeper and further than that. During a debate on nurses' pay on 25 March this year, the Minister talked about the expected outcome of the pay review structure. Hon. Members should not let him off of that hook this afternoon. He said:
  "The result is that all we are doing is facing everybody—Government, health authorities, staff and review body—with the reality that there is a relationship between pay and service provision."—[Official Report, 25 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 195.]
  I am glad that we have established that reality, because the thrust of the argument by alliance Members today will be that, given that the Minister has signalled clearly that we cannot divorce the two elements of Health Service management and delivery of patient care, it is wrong for the Government to argue that, even if they do not provide additional funds to meet the pay increases, there will be no detrimental impact on patient care.
  Mr. Tracey rose——
  Mr. Kennedy: We have had Tweedledum, so we had better have Tweedledee.
  Mr. Tracey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give serious instead of frivolous consideration to my point. He talked about service provision. Has he heard about cost effectiveness in service provision? Will he say anything about putting ancillary services out to tender? Has he said a word to the officers of his local health authority about putting services out to tender? He must realise that many costs can be saved in that way.
  Mr. Kennedy: Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said at the outset. I quoted from a representative of one authority at the NAHA conference, which the Minister addressed, who recognised immediately that the efficiency savings that the authority had achieved, and which I hope the Minister will confirm have been achieved in many cases, have already been swallowed up as a result of the Government's decision. I was extremely interested to note that the Institute of Health Services Management said that it makes nonsense of Health Service management to try to encourage efficiency savings and then to tell managers that those savings cannot be ploughed back into providing better patient care.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Gentleman has been remarkably dismissive, as he is entitled to be, of what I said. He used my words when
  34
  describing an increase which, this year, will be more than 5 per cent. on part of the pay bill of all health authorities when it comes to meeting the review body awards. Given that authorities have had a cash increase this year of 5·5 per cent. and that they are making cost improvements on top of that, has the hon. Gentleman bothered to check the assertions of one stray delegate from Teesside, or is that his only evidence for sweeping aside the care fully considered financing of the nurses' pay award?
  Mr. Kennedy: The Minister is being extremely helpful, because he is falling back—I shall quote his words from the debate of 2 July—on the argument that he used against the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who gave an example from his constituency. The Minister said:
  "I prefer that intervention"—from a supporter of his——"to anecdotes about a man in Aberdeen."
  When it comes to savings, the Minister should take seriously the views of any Aberdonian. He continued:
  "It is obvious, apart from anecdotal evidence"—
  this from a Minister who talks about me being dismissive—
  "that the Opposition have produced from a few places, that pay for nurses and improving the services can go hand in hand if one continues to improve the way that the service is delivered, as the Government have."—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 215–16.]
  It is interesting that the Minister is sticking to that trenchant defence today.
  Let me give a little more anecdotal evidence, and consider the difficulties of Bloomsbury health authority. I know that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is extremely worried about this matter. The authority faces a shortfall this year of about £1·4 million, and the figure could rise to double that.
  In Northampton, the district health authority chairman has already said that he is envisaging a £500,000 cut in terms not only of expanding—we are talking not just about pushing the frontiers further—but of maintaining the service of health care.
  In Canterbury, the health authority has lobbied furiously, and the nurses in particularly have met their constituency representative to express their grave concern and the fact that they feel that they are being held open to moral blackmail. That is their phrase.
  With regard to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), his district health authority has expressed its grave concern, as no doubt he is aware, about the effects in the area.
  As one piles up case after case, it is not enough to be dismissive. The Minister has been dismissive about the anecdotal evidence, but this is the real front line health care, and these are the people who are having to make the unpalatable choices.
  Mr. Frank Field: On the question of anecdotal evidence, would it not be an innovation in such a debate to hear from Conservative Members anecdotal evidence that the standard of health care in their communities is increasing? Is not one of the problems that, despite the figures which the Government publish, when we go to our constituencies, constituents report cuts rather than increases in services?
  Mr. Kennedy: I think that the hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. He is correct in pointing out that that kind

  35
  of constituency surgery experience is by no means confined to Opposition Members; it is also apparent on the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to me. He began his search for further evidence by citing the example of Bloomsbury district health authority. He knows perfectly well that what is happening in Bloomsbury has nothing whatever to do with the nurses' pay settlement. It has a great deal to do with the implementation of the redistribution of resources between Bloomsbury and other parts of that district and of the country. As the RAWP policy now being implemented by Bloomsbury was introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and has been supported by his party throughout, would he please withdraw Bloomsbury and its £1·5 million as an example of anything to do with the debate?
  Mr. Kennedy: I do not know how recently the Minister for Health spoke to Bloomsbury, but we spoke to Bloomsbury last week. He is quite right to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) introduced the RAWP formula and policy. He is also right to say, as I pointed out in the debate on the National Health Service cuts less than two weeks ago, that we continue to support the thrust of that policy. But he is quite wrong to try to attribute all the difficulties and ills affecting Bloomsbury to the pure product of the RAWP formula. He knows as well as I do that much of the difficulty which Bloomsbury is facing in terms of the £1·5 million, and indeed almost twice that amount, which it is having to find from the figures which it has presented, comes largely from the lack of additional revenue resources which are being made available to implement the pay review body recommendations. It is typical of the Minister to try to deflect the argument on to other ground and to argue some other formula, which is not the core of the debate, to provide the shield for his own inadequate resource support for the National Health Service.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that Golden Square hospital, to which every deaf person in the country has been grateful, and which is attached to the Royal National throat, nose and ear hospital, is a victim also? It is a constituency case in which we know that everything is good, yet the hospital is closed.
  Mr. Kennedy: It is interesting to hear in the House and in the National Health Service generally the contrast between the ivory tower which the Minister seems to occupy in regard to NHS funding and the reality in the streets and communities where patients are worried and nurses are disillusioned and depressed about being given a phased pay increase. It is being made clear locally that this can be borne only on the backs of cuts in provisions elsewhere.
  Mr. Hickmet rose——
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall not give way. I have given way quite a few times. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
  I turn briefly—the House will appreciate that it is only fair that I should—to north of the border, Scotland. Thinking about the other land, Wales, I am
  36
  delighted to note that the cuts in the Health Service and the failure of communication and of content of policy exemplified and personified by the Minister were an important item on the agenda in the Brecon and Radnor by-election. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livesey) will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and put the case for the people of Brecon and Radnor who forcefully identified the paucity of the Government's policy.
  The Minister will have heard my views on several other occasions, so I shall not dwell on the difficulties which the Highland health board is encountering. In some respects it is akin to the problems which Livingston is encountering with the new West Lothian district general hospital. It is like something out of "Yes, Minister". It has been told that it can open up new and important technological facilities, which we all welcome, but is being given not a penny extra to run them. Highland health board, for example, has two new hospitals, one in Inverness, which will be opened in August, and one in Wick, which we very much welcome. However, in response, Highland health board had to issue a consultative document which envisaged the effect of the closure of two hospitals in my constituency and in the island of Skye—the reduction of maternity facilities to two beds on Broadford at the south end of the island. Those are the kind of hard-line cuts which are having to be envisaged to meet the revenue implications which arise from lack of Government support. The situation will worsen as a result of the pay award.
  It is interesting that the position is no better in Ayrshire or in the health board in Argyll.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the SHARE formula, which is the equivalent of RAWP in Scotland, was designed by the last Labour Government, supported by most of his hon. Friends, in such a way that central Government did not keep back money in order to help with new hospital opening? It was agreed then that all the money should be disbursed and that health boards should plan for the future opening of hospitals. That is what Highland health board has done with Raigmore which is being opened, has patients in it and is in no way like the hospital in "Yes, Minister".
  Mr. Kennedy: It is amazing to hear the Minister sound like an Opposition Front Bench spokesman. He blames the previous Government when his own party was elected to government in 1979. If he thinks that the policy is damaging and if he finds the reductions in patient care offensive, why does he not change the policy? He is the Minister with responsibility and authority to implement such changes. We know why only too well. As he proved in such matters as the limited list, he is willing to lie down at the feet of the Treasury rather than fight his corner for Scottish health provision.
  We argue today that cash must and should be found. We specifically earmark the contingency reserve as one possible area where cash can be made available. It has been deliberately set high this year and increased by £2 billion which, on the other side of the swings and roundabouts, will mean a further deflationary measure elsewhere in the economy. The contingency reserve has been increased by £2 billion. That is probably due to the Chancellor learning from his experience of a £3 billion to

  37
  £4 billion overshoot last year. The public sector borrowing requirement currently is set at about £7 billion—approximately one third higher than last year. It would appear that the Chancellor is going to allow for a further £3 billion to £4 billion overshoot this year. We do not know exactly how the Government view public expenditure and whether they are proud or ashamed of it.
  The truth about NHS expenditure is that a lot of the overshoot—the item which we are debating today being a notable exception—often comes about by default rather than by design. It comes about through demographic pressures and the pace and pressure imposed by medical technology. It comes about through increasing equipment costs in a financial year. That is why at the time of the Budget, alliance Members argued that PSBR should be increased, and we were quite unashamed about that. The proposed increase to £9 billion was relatively modest by international standards. We said that it would be expansionary, that it would require more borrowing and that we should have to find money to increase real expenditure on the Health Service by 1·5 per cent. per year. Such an increase only begins to make some inroads not so much in keeping pace with expenditure but pushing forward the frontiers of health care. That must be a better resource to fund welcome awards for nurses, widwives, health visitors and other allied professions. We should not forget that there will be more cost increases, which will increase the pressure. Anything less than that approach amounts to a serious cut by stealth.
  It will be interesting to see how the Centre Forward Conservatives decide to vote at 7 pm. If they support the Government amendment, which is thoroughly fraudulent and bears no resemblance to the funding problem, they will be supporting later this year, and even more savagely next year, further demoralising, debilitating cuts which alliance Members firmly oppose, based on our carefully costed economic programmes which were published at the time of the Budget. We will try to reverse that trend after the next general election when we assume government.
  4.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  `congratulates the Government on implementing the recommendation of the Health Service Pay Review Bodies and awarding a fair pay increase to all the staff concerned, with particularly high awards for staff nurses and ward sisters; notes that nurses' pay has risen by 23 per cent. in real terms between April 1979 and March 1985 and will rise significantly this year as a result of the Review Body award; welcomes the 5·5 per cent. increase in health authority and health board funding which, together with the extra resources gained from cost improvement programmes, will enable service developments to take place in addition to the funding of the pay award; and notes with approval the continuing increases in the number of patients treated by the Health Service.'
  If I was attempting the briefest possible opening speech, it would go like this. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, we now have a record number of nurses paid record salaries helping a record number of patients in a National Health Service which is funded at a record high. However, after what the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said, it looks as though a bit more is needed.
  38
  The motion shows a surprising lack of realism. Rather surprisingly, alliance Members seem today to want to indulge in the luxury of ignoring the substantial improvements that have been made in the Health Service during the past few years. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye is generally a reasonable sort of bloke. We listen to him with care and interest and sometimes with respect for him as a bit of a prodigy—a Boris Becker of the Highlands and Islands, even down to the correct patination.
  On 2 July, the hon. Gentleman made some criticisms of Government policy and mentioned the funding of the nurses' pay award. Unlike the Labour Front Bench that day, the hon. Gentleman was realistic about some of our achievements and, unlike today, he was prepared to give credit where credit was due. He talked of our "sensible ideas" and recognised
  "that cuts in the number of beds do not always mean that there are cuts in health care."—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 229.]
  I welcomed that speech and was looking forward to today's. Alas, today, leading for the Social Democratic party, he seems, in view of his talk of cuts by stealth, accusations about public schoolboys on the Front Bench and savage personal attacks on my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health who, as we all know, is not a robust spirit, to have caught more than a touch of Meacheritis during the weekend. I hope that he will recover soon and return back to his old, balanced, self.
  We went over much of the ground that the hon. Gentleman covered today in response to a similarly ill-conceived motion moved by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who we are pleased to see on the Opposition Front Bench. The scene set by my right hon. and learned Friend in that debate hardly lends itself to the prospect of overblown damaging long-term reductions such as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye would have us believe. I shall not repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend said in that debate as we have only until 7 pm and many of my hon. Friends hope to speak.
  Nobody would dispute the importance of paying dedicated staff a fair wage for their vital work. I believe that we are achieving the right balance in the NHS. Our concern for the Health Service is amply demonstrated by what we have done for nurses since 1979. There are four main points, all of which, uncharacteristically, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye skated over. First, between April 1979 and February 1986, nurses' basic pay rates will have risen by an average of 111 per cent.—more than 30 per cent. ahead of the forecast rise in prices during the same period.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: Secondly, we have reduced nurses' working weeks from 40 to 37·5 hours in 1980–81——
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: With no loss of pay.
  Mr. Patten:—at a cost of £116 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) says, there have been substantial increases in pay, not losses.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is for the Minister to decide whether to give way.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is difficult for the Minister to decide to give way when he turns his back on the House and is not aware that an hon. Member is trying to intervene.
  Mr. Patten: I apologise unreservedly if I have offended the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not give way to him.
  Thirdly, we are now employing more nurses than ever before. The House has heard some criticisms of our conduct of the NHS, but I can announce that the manpower figures for March 1985, which we have just received, reveal that the NHS in England has 401,200 nurses—the most in its history.
  Mr. Frank Field: Full or part-time?
  Mr. Patten: An extra 42,500 whole-time equivalents have been employed in England since we came to office. The equivalent figure for Scotland is 6,358. Even if we take account of the reduction in the nurses' working week, 18,900 more nurses are on the wards in England. Within those increases, the proportion of fully trained nurses is also rising. More and better care is being given on the wards.
  Mr. Hickmet: My hon. Friend will recall the challenge made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), stating that the Government cite the blanket figures of 42,000 in England and 6,000 in Scotland. Is my hon. Friend aware of the position in Scunthorpe general hospital, where the number of staff has increased by 55 in the past year, seven of whom are paramedical staff and five of whom are doctors, where there is a new £30 million building programme and where a new psychiatric wing opened last year?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a short debate and interventions, particularly from those wishing to catch my eye later, will prevent hon. Members who wish to make contributions from doing so.
  Mr. Patten: I am aware of the improvements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) referred. I was in the Humberside area two Fridays ago and I heard about how pleased people are with the developments in hospitals such as that in my hon. Friend's constituency and in the nearby hospital in Grimsby.
  Fourth and last in the list of improvements for nurses, is the establishment of the new review body to make recommendations about appropriate pay levels. This is a most important step foward. There can be no question but that this represents a major advance for the nursing profession. Nurses have never had their pay determined through a standing system of this type and the two major inquiries that produced for a while substantial pay increases for nurses—Halsbury in 1974 and Clegg at a later stage—were one-off exercises. Consequently, pay levels, for example those established by Halsbury, were quickly eroded as a result of the high inflation under the last Labour Government. By 1979, the pay awards had been written off by inflation. Is the Labour party proud of that? It cannot be. I do not believe that the Labour party did anything other than let nurses and the nursing profession down badly.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: While the Government have every reason to congratulate themselves on this magnificent achievement, does my hon. Friend
  40
  accept that, under Governments of both parties, there is a special problem of underfunded districts and overfunded regions? Will he be prepared to look into this problem urgently, particularly as Southend is one such area?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend knows that I am concerned about the problems of funding in the Health Service in Southend. He has already been to visit me and talk about these matters. He knows that discussions are going on between his health district, the North-East Thames regional health authority and my Department. We are continuing to look at the problem of the Southend health district and I take this opportunity to congratulate its excellent chairman and all those who work in it on what they are doing.
  I am sure that the setting up of the pay body has been welcomed, not only by nurses but by everybody in this country who feels an enormous debt of gratitude for the magnificent work that nurses do. Against this background, which was ignored by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, I move on to the arguments about the 1985–86 pay awards and their funding. I thought that the SDP was keen on fair and even-handed treatment, but the hon. Member looked at the one without having set the scene of the other.
  We would have preferred to be able to implement the latest set of review body recommendations all at once instead of in two stages. However, we had to strike a careful balance between the speed of implementation of the awards and the capacity of the NHS to absorb these major pay increases without damaging patient services. Our evidence to the review bodies for both nurses and doctors clearly spelled out that no additional funding would be forthcoming on top of the large increase in cash that had already been made available in the general allocations. It is no good pretending that pay can somehow be divorced from the realities of spending generally in the NHS. We have faced up to this, as any Government must, and have made our position abundantly clear. Pay accounts for between 73 and 75 per cent. of the NHS annual revenue budget.
  Nor should it be overlooked that the full rates recommended by the review body for nurses and midwives, like those for doctors, will be in payment well before the end of the financial year. I take just two examples. First, this means that ward sisters and staff nurses, the main clinical grades, will be on pay rates between 9 and 14·3 per cent. higher than they were in 1984. In layman's terms, forgetting percentages, this means that from next February we estimate that the average earnings of a staff nurse will have risen by £11·50 per week and by £21·40 per week for a ward sister. These are very considerable increases.
  Secondly, the position of student nurses has improved. They get an increase of £3 to £5 a week. Before Opposition Members start talking about the erosion of pay awards by increases in lodging charges for those in residential accommodation, in which a number, but far from the majority, of student nurses are housed, I point out that residential accommodation charges have gone up by 44p.
  Mr. George Park: Will the Minister say something about the effect of this award on nurses' night duty payments?
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has in front of him, or he would have if he went to the Library or looked at

  41
  Hansard, the pay agreement arranged between the nurses, the Royal College of Nursing and the Government. The nurses have settled on the figure announced for this year, which includes all their duties. If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that he is unable to recognise genuine improvements in the position of a staff nurse getting £11·50 a week more or a ward sister getting £21·40 a week more, he is blind to the facts. I am afraid that we have to use facts in place of absurd arguments.
  I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will be pleased to learn that the new pay rates for both nurses and the allied professions have now gone out to health authorities and should be reflected in the August pay packets.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose——
  Mr. Patten: I have given way a great deal already and I trust that the House will forgive me for not giving way any more in the interests of other hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who wish to make speeches. If there is one hon. Gentleman who would have to wait a very long time before I gave way to him, it would have to be the hon. Gentleman for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), with his interest in the IRA. Anyone who, like me, has served in the Northern Ireland Office would, like me, treat the hon. Gentleman's attitude with contempt.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is windy.
  Mr. Patten: "Windy" describes all too well the hon. Member for wherever it is that the tube stations are located—Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye made great play of the impact that funding these awards will have on health authorities.
  We need to pause and get the funding of the pay awards into perspective. For example, health authorities in England will receive some £9·5 billion in revenue funding from the Government this year. This includes a cash increase of over £500 million for 1985–86. Scottish health boards received £1·35 billion, a cash increase of some £70 million. Health authorities have also told us that they plan to realise about £150 million extra this year through their growing programme of cost improvements—something largely ignored by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. In Scotland, health boards are doing the same, including the health board that is chaired by the hon. Gentleman's former headmaster.
  Mr. Kennedy rose——
  Mr. Patten: I did not intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech but I shall give way once more, in recognition of the hon. Gentleman's important Front Bench position.
  Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister confirm or deny my argument, based on the Government's White Paper and applying the Government's Treasury GDP deflator technique, that last year there was a 0·1 per cent. reduction in output, and this year this has been increased threefold to 0·3 per cent.?
  Mr. Patten: One has to look at figures that demonstrate the economic cost of the services being provided.
  In the face of the formidable additional sums which have gone into the National Health Service, linked to the equally formidable sums of cost improvement, both south
  42
  and north of the Border, it is completely misleading to suggest that the pay rises of nurses and doctors can only be met at the expense of patient services. It is obvious that decisions like this, taken during the course of the year, sometimes require the revision of short-term plans, but flexibility like this always has and always will be a characteristic of NHS planning. The vast majority of authorities recognise this and will cope more than adequately with the pay bill costs that they face this year.
  I was surprised that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye indulged in speculation about the prospects for 1986–87 and future expenditure years. It does the NHS no good if, far from talking about the current or the past position, people indulge in highly speculative and morale-damaging allegations about the future, and I do not propose to join the hon. Gentleman. The effect of the staged awards on next year's pay costs will be taken into account in the public expenditure review. I hope that those who are making alarmist statements about problems that they imagine will arise next year will take note.
  I reject the hon. Gentleman's strictures. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and I stand by the Government's record. I am convinced that the Government's treatment of this year's award represents a highly satisfactory outcome, which is fair to nurses, taxpayers, the NHS and NHS patients. I believe that, together, the review body that we set up in 1983, our increased spending on the NHS and its better management is enabling us to begin to solve sensibly the difficult and complex problem of settling the pay of nurses. This is essential to the united aim of the Government and the NHS to improve the service that we provide for patients. Nurses and doctors have a critical role to play in achieving that aim.
  I am slightly confused about the health policy of the Social Democratic party and about how it hopes to help more patients. Is the SDP's health policy the same as the Liberal party's health policy? If not, how does it differ from the Liberal party's policy? We may be told by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) when he winds up the debate. I understand that a little later tonight those hon. Members who want to do so can hear him play the clarinet in the Liberal jazz band. It will be interesting to see whether he and his SDP friends play the same tune about health care.
  Every time we look at the policies of the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party we see very wide gaps between them. Is the gap on health as wide between the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party as it is between the unilaterialism of the Liberal party defence policy and the nuclear deterrence defence policy of the SDP?
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney (Peterborough): Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be interesting to see whether the spokesman for the Liberal party mentions patients in his speech, and in particular whether he is able to bring himself to appreciate the substantial increase in the number of outpatients, inpatients and day case patients who are now being treated by the NHS? It will be interesting to see whether he welcomes that increase or whether he denies its existence, which was the theme of the spokesman for the Social Democratic party.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is characteristically right, so I am pleased that I acceded to the temptation to give

  43
  way to him. Either the hon. Member for Leeds, West must agree that more patients are being treated nationally and locally, or he must disagree with his hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. He cannot have it both ways. The Liberal and Social Democratic parties cannot try to have it both ways in public relations but then go in two separate directions over policy, one party being in favour of unilateral disarmament, the other party being in favour of nuclear deterrence. Shall we find that the same differences exist over NHS policy as exist over economic policies, with one party liking free market economics and the other party wanting to manage everything in sight? The Liberal party opposes the use of nuclear power for providing energy, while the SDP supports it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is the third occasion upon which the Under-Secretary of State has mentioned nuclear policy. It is far removed from the amendment that he is supposed to be moving.
  Mr. Patten: I apologise profoundly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having gone down that road. I thought it was important that the general public should know about the substantial policy differences between the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party and that it should be exposed in a way that the press is all too disinclined to expose. We shall have to wait and see how big is the gap between them on health matters. However, the hon. Menber for Ross, Cromarty and Skye has made no case this afternoon which allows us to understand any more clearly his party's health policy. He made no case at all for his motion and I must invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it in the Lobby.
  4.56
  Mr. Michael Meacher: The Opposition support the motion. It is broadly in line with our own response to the Government's handling of the pay review body's awards that were announced on 6 June. I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). It is even more significant that in the reply of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary—or PUSS as I believe he is known in the trade—he played the usual gramophone record about the Government's performance but in a characteristically ungenerous speech flailed about at everything in sight and said embarrassingly little about the subject under debate, and very little indeed about the funding of the pay award for nurses.
  There are three aspects to the awards about which we made strong objections at the time and about which we still object. First, there is a marked difference in the time scale for implementing the awards, which severely discriminates against nurses. The award for the armed forces was met in full and was backdated to 1 April. The award to the doctors was met in full and paid from 1 June. The award to nurses, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine is, however, to be held back for 10 months.
  On the nurses' pay review body the Minister, with a wonderful elasticity of language, said:
  "We are accepting the review body's recommended levels and we will bring them into payment in full as soon as we can."
  When translated, I think that he meant: "The Government have rejected the review body's proposals for nurses and
  44
  midwives and will pay the recommended increase only for the final two months." For almost the entire year, nurses will receive, at most, 5 per cent. This will leave them below the rate of inflation and will do nothing to eliminate low pay among unqualified nurses who are living on the poverty line.
  The Opposition's second objection is that, compared with last year, the funding arrangements represent, by any standard, a major tightening of the screw on the National Health Service. In the year before last, the Government covered 100 per cent. of the pay award to nurses out of central funds. They were quite right to do so, and we would do the same. Last year, the Government covered £180 million only out of the £216 million award to nurses and related groups, which is 83 per cent. This year they are covering only 33 per cent. That is a measure of the sharpening pressure on NHS budgets during the last two years.
  Our third objection is that the whole exercise has involved the declaration of a pay norm that the Government know to be completely unrealistic as a way of camouflaging the imposition of further cuts. To that extent I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, who referred to making cuts by stealth.
  The Minister has denied that he set a 3 per cent. pay ceiling at any time. But it is clear from reading the document that both the permanent secretary, Sir Kenneth Stowe, and the chairman of the NHS management supervisory board, Mr. Victor Paige, told the Select Committee on Social Services that the pay assumption was 3 per cent. If the Minister doubts that, I suggest he reads the record. The Government know perfectly well that a 3 per cent. limit can never be met while inflation is running at 7 per cent. and pay settlements generally at something between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. It was simply a device to offload most of the onus for meeting the pay claim on to the health authorities, and the Government knew it must lead either to cuts in nurses' jobs or to cuts in services to patients. Either way, that is moral blackmail.
  The Minister chose to disregard these criticisms in the bland statement he issued at the National Association of Health Authorities conference in Cardiff last month. That cannot have been one of his most enjoyable visits. At that conference he said he was
  "'singularly unimpressed' by any English health authority which said the nurses' settlement would have any impact on its budgeting plans."
  He went so far as to say:
  "I must greet with disbelief any authority saying it cannot afford the full cost of the nurses' pay award."
  I have news for the Minister. The disbelief is all on the side of the health authorities, who view such a dismissive statement from the Minister as either supremely arrogant or astonishingly naive. A great many health authorities believe that the nurses' pay award cannot be met without substantial cuts. It is not difficult to see why.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, not until I finish this section. I will say why we believe that that crucial point is the case. In a year when the total cash increase for hospital and community health services in England was £521 million—that is the Government figure—this pay award alone will cost health authorities £240 million. Even those health authorities which receive additional cash to help them cope

  45
  with demographic pressures will find that this money is needed to fund pay awards, and savings obtained from cost improvement programmes will have to be diverted from new developments, for which they are intended, to compensate for this.
  That is because this year's pay award to nurses and doctors can be accommodated—this is the crucial point Ministers have to answer—within health authority budgets only if prices rise by only 5 per cent.—as everyone knows, they are currently running at 7 per cent.—and only if pay to other Health Service groups does not exceed 3 per cent. Ministers and possibly other hon. Members know that a pay increase to other Health Service workers of 4·7 per cent. has been rejected. The Government's only refuge is to talk, as the Minister has done many times and as his hon. Friend did today, about efficiency savings. But in this world, one does not get owt for nowt, as they say in Lancashire.
  So-called efficiency savings, which is a euphemism if ever there was one, are bought at a price, and are often achieved only at the expense of reduced maintenance and repair work or through land sales or the postponement of new projects. That is not a saving at all. It is simply an uneconomic deferment of today's problems until tomorrow when they will be solved often at higher cost. The cost of the Government's foolish policy, not the savings, was pinpointed recently by the Audit Commission. Its report drew attention to the fact that completing the backlog of repairs to hospitals would cost £1,700 million. That is some efficiency saving, if it is at the price of postponing those repairs even further.
  Mr. John Patten: Will the hon. Gentlman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman was exceedingly rude about many Opposition Members and I feel tempted not to give way. However, as I am a little more generous than the hon. Gentleman, I will give way.
  Mr. Patten: I am very grateful to the hon. Member. Does he not recognise that one of the reasons that the backlog, both in the capital programme and in building maintenance in the National Health Service, grew so much in the late 1970s was the savage 30 per cent. cuts in the NHS capital account that the last Labour Government set in train?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman's attempt to defend the Government would be much more plausible if the Government's current spending on investment in the Health Service was up to the level achieved by the last Labour Government. When the Government can achieve that performance, they might have some case.
  The Government's excuse about efficiency savings needs to be met once and for all. It resolves itself into two options: either maintenance or repair work or new projects needed now are postponed, in which case the eventual cost to the NHS will be substantially higher and efficiency savings can be seen as merely storing up bigger trouble for tomorrow; or this needed work is carried out now, as it should be, in which case there will have to be other cuts in the Health Service to meet these pay awards. Either way, it must surely be clear to everyone in the House that a sizeable funding gap cannot be filled by glibly trotting out phrases like "efficiency savings".
  46
  Exactly the same conclusion was reached by the Select Committee on Social Services in its sixth report. published on 12 June. In a carefully argued passage in paragraph 13 the Committee says:
  "the additional pay costs in 1985–86 for cash-limited NHS services would be 5·4 per cent for doctors and 5·6 per cent. for nurses. The Department is unable to give a sensible estimate at this stage for an HCHS pay and prices factor, because of the outstanding pay settlement for other NHS staff."
  I understand that. The report continues:
  "It is highly unlikely that inflation in the HCHS will be under 5 per cent. If it were to be 6 per cent, that would leave an input volume figure of—0·2 per cent, similar to 1984–85."
  Leaving aside the jargon, that means a cut, and on the most careful analysis, the Select Committee on Social Services, on which Conservative Members have a majority, arrived at the conclusion that, based on the likely level of this year's inflation, there will be cuts in services. That is the report to the House of the Select Committee on Social Services and its analysis of the evidence. The report makes it clear that, far from there being any growth in the NHS services this year, following these pay awards there will almost certainly be cuts.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I always regret, almost as soon as I get up, arguing against the hon. Gentleman's tortuous use of figures. He will admit that the passage he has read is about measuring spending in the Health Service in relation to pay and price movements. It says that "if" the pay and prices factor inside the NHS were to reach 6 per cent. then there would be a reduction.
  Mr. Dobson: That is what my hon. Friend is saying.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is either not listening or not understanding. We are talking about 1985–86. The nurses' award is 5·6 per cent., but we do not have a settlement for the other staff. An amazing settlement for the other staff would be required to take it up to 6 per cent. on that basis alone. The hon. Gentleman is being alarmist by taking an inflated view of the likely level of inflation for the whole year, which he thinks is going to come to 7 per cent. That is the highest estimate that I have ever heard. That has been driven up anyway by mortgage interest, which is not, to my knowledge, paid by health authorities. Even the month-to-month figures have been driven up by factors which health authorities do not meet. The hon. Gentleman has also overlooked the effect of the reduction of national insurance contributions in this year's Budget. Those are paid by health authorities on the great bulk of their staff.
  For all those reasons, will the hon. Gentleman admit that once again he is going through the evidence of a Select Committee desperately trying to put together unlikely figures to turn £500 million of increased cash limits into an alleged and fictitious cut?
  Mr. Meacher: The Minister is getting very worried at my simply repeating what the Social Services Committee said. If he disagrees with the Committee, perhaps he will give us his estimate of the likely pay and prices factor for this year. If he disagrees with 5 or 6 per cent., I will give way so that he can give us his estimate of what he thinks it will be.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman forgets that a moment ago he said that it was fair for us to say that we could not give an estimate because we had not yet settled. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman stop basing fatuous cases on hypothetical assumptions?
  Mr. Meacher: The other way of putting it is that the Minister cannot deny that there may be a pay and prices factor this year which will lead to cuts in the NHS.
  What worries health authorities most is the fact that the situation could become much more serious next year. They are having to meet two thirds of the 9 per cent. nurses' pay award from February next year, and if a similarly large proportion of next year's pay award were left unfunded by the Government—given the trend of the past two years, that is extremely likely—health authorities could find themselves forced to make far bigger cuts than anything yet contemplated.
  I shall give the Minister several examples, which he will be pleased to hear are not anecdotes. I have been in touch with several health authorities about how they propose to fund next year's pay award. In West Lambeth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] West Lambeth is a significant health authority. The Minister wishes to sack the members because of their unwillingness to carry through cuts which will amount to £80 million by 1993. The West Lambeth treasurer tells me that, as a result of the authority having to fund most of the pay award, there will be a shortfall of £450,000 this year and of £1 million next year.
  The health authority already has to cut—1 million from next year's budget—the Minister wishes it to do that—in addition to suffering a cut of a further £1 million in RAWP money, making a loss of £3 million by 1986–87. The authority told me:
  "Inevitably, there will be cuts in services to patients"
  either in acute beds or in putting a stop to community development.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No.
  Salford said that the fact that it is being required to fund most of the nurses' pay award will produce a shortfall in finance for health services of £360,000 this year and £ 1 million next year. It does not have a development fund and gets money from the region only for specific programmes.
  The Salford authority says that it has cut everything possible over the past few years, and all that is left to be cut are services to patients.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Rubbish.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about Salford. His intervention demonstrates either arrogance or absurd pretentiousness.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No.
  As a result of having to fund most of the pay award, the Brighton health authority will have to make cuts of £500,000 this year and £1·3 million to £1·5 million next year. I have with me Brighton's document "Impact of Pay Review Body Awards and Increased Rate of Price Inflation on the Finances of the Authority", which makes it clear that the authority is planning cuts from among 60 items. They include taking all or most services from Hove and Lewes hospitals, not replacing consultants when they retire, employing trainee nurses rather than trained staff in GP surgeries, abolishing the ambulance bus service for the sick and frail, reducing nursing cover on night duties, reducing cleaning standards in staff accommodation,
  48
  charging low-paid NHS staff more for meals, cutting staffing levels on long-stay wards, reducing training spending, reducing fire precaution levels, reducing the quality of services in the control sterile supplies department and reducing family planning and dentistry services. [Interruption.] Here is the report; if the Minister does not believe me, he can read it for himself.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Having listened to that list, all I can say is that they must be paying their nurses a fortune in Brighton.
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the two authorities that he has quoted—West Lambeth and Salford—are both overspending authorities and that the changes that they are having to make are to get back within planned budgets? The previous Labour Government insisted on that policy. Whatever arguments we may have about the overspending that has happened in Salford and is planned in Lambeth, all Governments have insisted that health authorities live within cash limits, and neither case has much to do with the nurses' pay claim.
  How can all those cuts be necessary in Brighton when the pay award to nurses is costing only 5·6 per cent. this year? Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that all this is based on a hypothetical assumption about next year's PESC settlement and next year's cash limits? None of the health authorities, any more than the Government and the Opposition, can have firm figures. We have not even started speaking to the Chief Secretary yet. I do not know the figures, never mind Brighton knowing them.
  Mr. Meacher: The Minister must get out of the doublespeak in which he indulges so readily when he talks about overspending. Underfunding is causing all the difficulties. It is not a case of authorities overspending and having to be brought back within budgets. The Minister is imposing intolerable strains on health authorities that are trying to provide a decent standard of service for patients.
  My final quotation comes from the Lewisham and North Southwark health authority. In a letter to the Secretary of State dated 26 June, the authority said:
  "This Health Authority … views with disdain this Government's repeated abdication from its responsibilities to fund fully pay awards to which it is a willing party. In not funding fully such pay awards, this Government is displaying a cavalier and uncaring attitude towards our staff and those people with whose health-care we are entrusted. Should this Government claim that those monies voted by Parliament are sufficient to cover any underfunding of pay awards, then we can only conclude that this Government has no understanding, by design or otherwise, of the parlous and precarious state of NHS provision in this inner London Health District attributable directly to this Government's attitude to Public Spending."
  That comes from a Tory-dominated health authority.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No. I know that the health authority is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I must get on.
  Like so many health authorities, Lewisham and North Southwark has a majority of known Tory supporters. Its letter shows how exasperated health authorities, even Tory authorities, are becoming at the Government's high-handedness in forcing major cuts, especially next year, which cannot be absorbed, whatever productivity improvements are made and however much the Minister juggles the figures, without significant cuts in patient care.

  49
  If the Minister cannot or will not see that fact, it is high time that he took the telescope from his blind eye and started looking directly at the facts and at what health authorities are telling him.
  The heart of the debate is the central question of NHS funding. I cannot repeat too often or too strongly that there is no way that an adequate health service can be provided on a budget that is unchanged as a proportion of GDP or, even worse, on a budget that represents a declining share of GDP over the next few years, as the Government's public expenditure White Paper suggests is proposed.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No.
  Under this Government, Britain is the lowest spender on health services in the western world. We spend only 5·7 per cent. of our GNP on health, compared with 8 per cent. in France and Germany, 9·5 per cent. in the United States and 10 per cent. in Sweden. Those are enormous differences between countries. We are not just marginally lower than our competitors; we are substantially lower.
  The Government seek to force health authorities to fund most of the pay award to doctors and nurses and to force them, without extra Government funds, to cope with major new and pressing requirements, which are not the Government's fault, but have arisen in recent times—such as community care provision, countering AIDS, cervical screening, containing the spread of hard drugs and countering further outbreaks of Legionnaire's disease. That is impossible within an NHS budget that is declining as a share of overall national resources.
  That is why the Government stand condemned and why no amount of special pleading about cost improvement programmes or so-called efficiency savings can insulate the Government from the stark reality that they are trying to force on to health authorities the onus which falls squarely on the Government for failing to fund the National Health Service properly.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman now give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) must resume his seat.
  Mr. Meacher: It is not that health authorities are guilty of overspending. It is that the Government are guilty of underfunding. Until the Government reconsider that position and the increasingly intolerable consequences on the ground in terms of patient care, the Opposition will be supporting the motion.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Richard Livsey: I hope that the House will excuse my by-election voice, which is compounded by a heavy cold.
  First, I pay tribute to the late hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, Mr. Tom Hooson. He was an excellent constituency Member and has been taken from us at an early age. He was dedicated to the people of Brecon and Radnor and served them well. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in remembering his good work and in extending great sympathy to his family. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  50
  The people of Brecon and Radnor have entrusted to me the great privilege of representing them here in Parliament. This I shall do to the best of my ability. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know that I was brought up amongst them and therefore feel well qualified to communicate with them and they with me, so that our voice can be heard here at Westminster.
  Without doubt, Brecon and Radnor is the finest constituency in Britain. Its beauty is unsurpassed in all of Wales, and the great quality of its people was recognised by the huge numbers of people of all political persuasions who visited us during the recent by-election. In fact I see many familiar faces on the Government Benches, and I am told that no fewer than 150 members of the official Opposition visited us. I also saw them in the highways and byways of my great constituency, some in Brecon, some in Llandrindod Wells, others in Knighton and Ystradgynlais, and some, too, were even lost.
  Brecon and Radnor is a series of communities, many of which are very small. The result is that the people are great individualists and rightly expect a lot from their Member of Parliament—hence my voice at the moment—and from their Government.
  The people of Rhayader will not tolerate being ignored or their efficient Vickers factory being under threat as a result of the privatisation of British Shipbuilders. Builth Wells was up in arms about the Audit Commission's thoughts on denying it a new school. Brecon would not suffer the closure of St. David's hospital, nor would Crickhowell tolerate the closure of Cwrt y Gollen camp. Ystradgynlais and its people have seen levels of unemployment in excess of 18 per cent. for far too long.
  The by-election was fought and won largely on the issue of cuts in public expenditure. These are policies being implemented by the Government and they have been found wanting by the people of Brecon and Radnor. Opposition to these cuts was focused on education and other local government expenditure, farming and especially the National Health Service.
  I was brought up in Talgarth, a town which is almost entirely dependent on National Health Service employment. The NHS employs 2,100 people in the constituency. There were many problems identified during the by-election campaign, but the future for the NHS in Brecon and Radnor is grim.
  Government cash limits throughout Powys area health authority allow a 3 per cent. increase in 1985–86, yet the nurses are to receive a 9 per cent. award, well deserved but not exceptional taking into account that it covers a two-year period.
  According to the chief executive of Powys area health authority, the net effect is a deficit of 5·4 per cent. on the area health authority budget for 1985–86 not catered for by the 3 per cent. increase in cash limits. The knock-on effect for the authority is to have to find £700,000 in the current year to finance pay awards from within its own resources—this in a budget of £21·496 million. The latest presumption is that a further £1·3 million will have to be found in 1986–87.
  I draw attention to the fact that 78 per cent. of the area health authority's expenditure in Powys goes on salaries. If this is related to the 1986–87 figures it will, taking account of Powys area health authority's average employer's cost of £8,000 per employee, result in a possible loss of 126 jobs within the authority.

  51
  If losses in Government revenue from redundancy payments, national insurance and tax losses, and VAT are taken into account, the so-called saving of £1·3 million will cost the Government £1·89 million in lost revenue and at the same time inflict great hardship on the people of Brecon and Radnor.
  These figures imply that a £1 restriction in cash limits has a consequent loss of revenue of £1·45 in the first year—in other words, a net loss of 45p. This is surely the economics of despair.
  These matters also cast suspicion on the Government's claim nationally of a 20 per cent. real growth in National Health Service funding since 1979. There was a 30 per cent. increase in nursing staff salaries in May 1979, and there has been a reduction of two and a half hours per week worked by nurses since 1980. If this is coupled with a 2·5 million increase in out-patients since 1980, a 650,000 increase in in-patients and 300,000 more day patients in the same period, Health Service output has increased significantly.
  These factors must surely be taken into account in future policy decisions about the National Health Service. The service requires adequate funding and a built-in allowance for an increasing aging population. This is a particular problem in my constituency and featured very strongly in the by-election campaign.
  Brecon and Radnor is a fine constituency traversed by the valleys of the rivers Usk and Wye. It is farmed supremely well, whether in the uplands of Radnorshire or in the Brecon Beacons, and in the great traditions of its livestock farming. The rewards of honest endeavour at present are declining farm incomes. These good people of Brecon and Radnor, whether in the hamlets, villages or towns such as those of Sennybridge, Llanwrtyd, Presteigne and even "independent" Hay-on-Wye, all need a better future.
  Our small businesses and communities must be allowed to thrive. Nor should we forget the immense job that needs doing for the area of Ystradgynlais and its fine people. The Government must provide us with the means to get aid from the European social fund. The need is quite clear. All that is required is the will power to provide it.
  I dedicated myself to Wales, my constituency and its people—to work constructively for them all. Will the Government of the day take their cue from the verdict of the people of Brecon and Radnor and work for them, too?
  5.29 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: It is my pleasure to be called immediately after the new and hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and to welcome him to the House.
  I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members when I say that the House will appreciate his generous tribute to his predecessor, who was a brave and much-respected Member and who sat on the Government Benches. He practised what many Liberals preach by way of community politics, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will serve his constituency as well as his predecessor did.
  The hon. Gentleman has started well. His speech was responsible and constructive. I hope that his tenure of Brecon and Radnor will be glorious, even though it will necessarily be brief.
  52
  A general feature of health services everywhere is that there is no natural level of expenditure and no level of expenditure that satisfies the requirements put on it. Expenditure can increase practically without limit. That is partly because demand is increasing. For example, we have an aging population, and the number of old and very old people will increase dramatically by the end of the century.
  I pay tribute to the private sector for looking after large numbers of elderly people in nursing and residential homes. About 30,000 people are looked after in nursing homes. That is often done more economically than would be possible in the public sector or in geriatric hospitals. I urge Labour Members to think long and hard before they dismiss the private sector in that respect. Where would those people go if the Labour party carried out its threat and shut down or restricted the entire private sector?
  Demand for health care is increasing for other reasons. We are now better at diagnosing diseases and there is an almost inexhaustible supply of new technology in the health sphere. The effect of the new technology is perverse. In industry, the introduction of new technology usually leads to savings in manpower—at any rate in the short term—to a reduction in unit costs and to lower revenue expenditure. A new piece of equipment in a hospital can have the opposite effect. It tends to increase demand. Expenditure rises and often new staff are required to service and look after it.
  The advance of medical science is almost without limit. That is welcome because it means that previously incurable illnesses can be treated. It also means, however, that treatments costing a few hundred pounds last year can he replaced by new treatments costing a few thousand pounds this year. It will always be difficult to accommodate such increases in expenditure in a budget which, in overall terms, can increase by only a few percentage points annually.
  If medical need is to be the sole criteria, there will be no limit to the scale of expenditure, because, if any human being anywhere is receiving a more advanced type of treatment, it will be open to people to demand that treatment, and patients and doctors will say that they need it, that the NHS should supply it and that the Government should pay for it.
  There is no escaping the fact that there is no level of expenditure or increase which will ever meet medical demand in its entirely. That is why, in the real world, choices must be made and priorities set. There will always be allegations that some treatment is being denied one or other group of patients. That fact must be faced by any party in office, and that is why I have been disappointed by the speeches made so far by Opposition Members. They have not addressed themselves to the central facts of expenditure in relation to health care.
  Labour Members should think carefully about their policy of ending private medicine. I have spoken of that in relation to the care of the elderly. How could the NHS cope with the additional patients if the private sector were shut down? How could it manage without that revenue and still have resources over to increase expenditure in the ways in which Opposition spokesmen promise?
  Dame Jill Knight: I urge my hon. Friend to pay tribute also to the way in which the private sector makes available pieces of equipment which the NHS would find it difficult to buy.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is a partnership between the private and public sectors. That, under the present Administration, is enabling many patients to receive advanced medical care which would otherwise not be available to them.
  Nor should Opposition Members be so dismissive of the internal economies and efficiency savings that have been achieved and the scope for funding at least part of the nurses' and doctors' wage award out of further economies. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) seemed almost to say that economies were impossible. 1 put that down to his lack of business or any other practical experience. He can take it from me that it is possible in any undertaking to increase output while holding costs.
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the amount of expenditure that is not represented by staff costs in the NHS amounts to about 25 per cent.? Thus, the savings that can be made in percentage terms bear more heavily on that component than on staff costs. If, however, savings are made at the expense of staff, what happens to those who are made unemployed? Presumably the net cost would not be great enough to warrant the redundancies that might be thought worth while if the policies that he is advocating were taken to their logical conclusion because the low-paid, being almost invariably those who are made redundant. cost almost as much to keep unemployed.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall come to the question of the balance of staff and other costs later in my speech. The answer to the rest of that intervention is that the hon. Gentleman's argument is a case for making no economic change at any time. If his argument is generalised, everyone must stay in his or her existing job from now until the end of time.
  I hope that Opposition Members are not so naive in relation to efficiency savings to imagine that only recorded and published savings give the full picture. It is of benefit to have in-house services and the knowledge that performance can be assessed against some external yardstick. Those concerned then know that their ultimate job security depends on their performance and the performance of the units in which they work. That feeling is familiar to anyone working in industry, but it has not been sufficiently prominent up to now in the NHS.
  Naturally, people prefer a quiet life. Few organisations ever reform themselves. That is why the Government must keep the pressure on. It is no criticism of existing NHS managements to say that there must be areas of waste, overlap and duplication still to be found and corrected. With almost 1 million people employed in the NHS, it is fantastic to allege that no further economies can be made. Of course they can, and it is no disrespect to the administrators at present in the health service to say that. Above all, let us end the obsession with how much money we are putting into the NHS and concentrate instead on how that money can be turned into patient care for the maximum number of people.
  Mr. John Patten: I am interested in my hon. Friend's remarks about the level of NHS expenditure. Does he agree that we should not compare carelessly or easily the amount of the gross domestic product spent in this country on health care with that of other countries? We should relate that expenditure to the quality of health care that is
  54
  given. Does he agree, for example, that it is extraordinary for the NHS to be spending at the present level of GDP and to be achieving lower perinatal mortality and higher life expectancy rates than are being achieved in the United States?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is an achievement of the Government that they have not only provided more resources for the Health Service, but have made them go further.
  I was disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). which was all about cash and resources. He said almost nothing about patients and patient care and the performance of the NHS.
  I do not wish to get into the statistical quagmire with the hon. Member for Oldham, West. He was obviously confused by the figures and failed to present a convincing case using them. The overall expenditure increase of 17 per cent. in real terms during the past six years gives the lie to the allegation that the Government are relentlessly cutting or dismantling the NHS. My hon. Friend the Minister gave a detailed breakdown of the figures, and they will no doubt be referred to again.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is not currently in the Chamber but who intervened earlier, said that figures were one aspect, but that there was no anecdotal evidence from Conservative Members that health care was increasing and improving on the ground. I can help the hon. Gentleman with that. The people at the western end of my constituency will soon have the benefit of a new, large, modern hospital at Weston-Super-Mare. During the past six years capital expenditure has increased substantially more than it did during the previous six years. The treatment of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped in Somerset is undergoing a process of structural change and reform. That will not save money, but it will improve care. The change will involve the closure of a number of large hospitals, including the Mendip hospital in Wells, and the transfer of patients to smaller satellite units, community residential units and day care units.
  That change is controversial in many respects and some people think that the trend towards community care for the mentally ill has gone too far—and I am inclined to agree with them. The new structure will not save money; indeed, the budgeted costs will be somewhat higher than at present. The emphasis is on improvements in care. The increased costs—which will be modest, but nevertheless will occur—have been agreed with this so-called uncaring Government.
  Mr. Kennedy: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman did not deliberately misrepresent what I said. He is describing what is happening in his local area, and I am listening to him with care. Can he tell us how much direct benefit will accrue to his area as a result of the health authorities having to meet the cost of the nurses' pay award?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My regional and district health authorities are perfectly confident that they can proceed with budgeted plans on capital and revenue expenditure and meet the nurses' pay award.
  Reference has been made to inflation in the NHS being faster than the general index of prices. It has been alleged that, therefore, spending increases have not really taken place. The reason for a faster rate of inflation in the NHS is precisely because wage costs and wage awards have

  55
  risen faster than the retail prices index. Nurses' pay rates have risen by 23 per cent. during the past six years, but, even after taking account of that price deflator, it is still true to say that there has been a substantial volume increase in NHS expenditure during the past six years. Nothing that Opposition Members may say, either inside or outside the House, can alter that fact.
  Opposition Members appear to be saying—and it is reflected in the motion before us—that we should have two NHS budgets: one for pay and one for general expenditure, and both of them elastic. I do not think that that is a sensible way to run the NHS. No commercial organisation can regard its wages bill as separate, to be topped up by an outside body from time to time. Indeed, it would be quite wrong and damaging for future negotiations if the Government stepped in in that way this year. If that happened, the review body and the Health Service negotiators would know that they were not working within a strict financial framework, but that their recommendations, negotiations and settlements could always be funded by some additional levy on the taxpayer. That is an old, familiar story of nationalised industry. We have been trying to move away from that way of settling our affairs. Let us not re-import it into this year's—or any year's—negotiations.
  If anything, I believe that this year's award highlights the problem of having an independent review body. I appreciate that it is convenient for Ministers to have such a body, and I pay tribute to its work in juggling some of the gradings within the NHS. But, by and large, it is better if those who pay the piper also negotiate with the piper.
  It would have been better if the alliance had faced that issue rather than, as usual, following the path of least resistance and calling for more public expenditure. The alliance has a long way to go, based on today's debate, before it can pose as a credible party of government.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said that the debate was about priorities, and to that extent I agree with him. Every Government must decide how much they allocate to health, defence, education and so on. Everyone who listens to or reads the debate must know that the NHS is in a shambles. It is being ruined day by day. That is why we are supporting the motion tonight.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) on his speech, especially for its brevity, clarity and the unequivocal statement that he won his seat because of the Government's neglect of the NHS in that area. Other hon. Members throughout the country know that to be true.
  The Government themselves, when they prepared their paper for the National Economic Development Office, provided figures showing that £1,700 million would be required to renovate and maintain our existing hospitals. The Government even said that that figure might be wrong because it included estimates for repairs to hospitals that should be demolished. That is the state of our National Health Service today.
  The Government's amendment congratulates them on
  "implementing the recommendations of the Health Service Pay Review Bodies".
  56
  Quite frankly, that is a lie. If I am called to order. I shall say that it is a deliberate distortion of the truth. They are not implementing the proposals of the review body, which said that the award should be paid in full and backdated to April. The Government are making an award of 5·6 per cent. now, but the nurses will have to wait until next February for the rest. In other words, it is jam tomorrow. Meanwhile, some of the nurses have to make do with less than 5 per cent. while prices are increasing by 7 per cent.
  The Government are saying to the nurses, "You are wonderful people and because you are so dedicated we shall cut your standard of living." That is what the figures mean. A 5 per cent. increase in salary and a 7 per cent. increase in prices results in a 2 per cent. reduction in a nurse's standard of living. However the figures are dressed up, they mean a cut in the standard of living for tens of thousands of nurses.
  Pupil nurses and first and second-year student nurses will have an increase of 4·7 per cent. or 4·8 per cent. up to next February. Hon. Members may argue that student nurses are training for qualifications, but we are talking about cheap, exploited labour. Even with the increase, those kids will receive only £80 a week gross.
  The Nursing Mirror carried an article the other day about student nurses. It warned:
  "Staff shortages are putting patients' lives in danger by leaving student nurses alone in charge of wards."
  That is being said not by the Labour party but by the Royal College of Nursing. The article continues:
  "A survey of 1,000 nurses showed that 31 per cent. of student nurses were often left in charge of wards, usually at night. Another 61 per cent. had occasionally been left alone. Staff shortages are blamed. Nearly 90 per cent. of qualified nurses in the survey said that they had warned hospital authorities that staff levels were dangerously low. Young students were being left to cope with acutely ill and dying patients.
  That is said by the Royal College of Nursing Students Association head, Miss Sandra Mills. That is what is happening in the real Health Service.
  The Minister behaved like a juvenile delinquent when he adopted his sneering manner today. He treated everyone who dared to criticise as either ignorant or malicious. We know from our surgeries throughout the country that we are talking about the real Health Service.
  In their amendment the Government preen themselves on the
  "particularly high awards for staff nurses and ward sisters".
  Of course the £6,000 starting point for newly qualified staff nurses is good, but only because the salary has been so inadequate. The staff nurse is the key nurse in any hospital. The maximum pay for a staff nurse in 1982–83 was £7,008. In 1983–84 it was £7,569. I obtained the figures in answer to a written question on 10 July last year.
  The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) talked about priorities and how we pay different rates for different services. In 1982–83 an untrained, unqualified police constable was paid a maximum of £9,798. By 1 September 1984 his maximum pay had risen to £11,193—about £3,600 more than the maximum for a fully qualified and fully trained staff nurse in our hospitals. Does anybody in the country or in the Government dare to say that a fully qualified staff nurse is not worth as much as a police constable?
  Government Members say that throwing money at the problem is no good, but that is exactly what they have done with the police. There is no talk of cash limits for them.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived. I want to make my case and then sit down.
  I say good luck to the police. In 1980 the police had an increase of 21·3 per cent. In 1981 they received another 13·2 per cent., in 1982 a further 10·3 per cent., in 1983 another 8·4 per cent. and in 1984–85 a further 5·1 per cent. Let us compare those figures with the figures that apply to nurses, who this year receive a miserable 5 per cent. it is not worth tuppence. The Government are throwing money like confetti at the police and armed forces when the nurses have to wait.
  Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: No.
  Mr. Hind rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not giving way.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, West (Mr. Hind) has only just come into the Chamber. He wants to intervene only to prove to his constituents that he has taken part in the debate.
  The Minister did not mention waiting lists. Since the Government came to office there has been an increase of 15 per cent. in the number of people on waiting lists.—[Interruption] I see that the Minister is impatient to intervene. He has given me figures about waiting lists for Scotland. In March 1980, a total of 69,904 people were on the waiting lists in Scotland. In March 1984, 85,364 people were on the waiting lists. The provisional figure for March 1984 was 83,061—an increase of over 18 per cent. That is the measure of how the Health Service is failing the people.
  Mr. John McKay: The reason for the increase is the dispute in the National Health Service which the hon. Gentleman supported day after day, despite the damage that it was doing.
  Mr. Hamilton: I thought that the Minister would say that. The figures up to that date were not down. I challenge the Minister to say whether he is claiming that over the next two years the waiting lists in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole will be reduced. If he is not prepared to say that, it is a measure of how the Government are failing the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Hind: Give way.
  Mr. Hamilton: No. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The Government talk about priorities——
  Mr. Hind: Give way.
  Mr. Hamilton: No.
  The Government talk about shortage of money. If there is a shortage of resources in the Health Service they should explain why they are spending £2,000 million over the next three years on 1,200 folk in the Falkland Islands. They can find money for that. Members of the Labour party should go on repeating that because it is indefensible and a waste of public money. That £2,000 million would be far better spent on the Health Service, for the good of the 56 million people in Britain, rather than being poured down the drain for 1,200 people 8,000 miles away
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: There is always a whiff of unreality and almost a whiff of hypocrisy when the House discusses an Opposition motion on the Health Service. There could be nothing more unreal and hypocritical than the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). The hon. Gentleman comes to this House with his heart on his sleeve, telling us what this wicked Thatcher junta is doing to the Health Service and forgetting what his own Government did.
  We had the privilege of listening to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) giving his swansong as the Opposition spokesman on the Health Service. The right name for him would be "Mr. 30 per cent.", because he was a Minister at a time when the Labour Party cut capital expenditure on hospital building by about 30 per cent.
  Under the Conservative Government, 35 hospital schemes in excess of £5 million each were completed between 1980 and 1984. In addition, 11,000 new beds have been provided, together with 169 new operating theatres, 105 X-ray rooms, 25 accident and emergency departments, and 22 out-patient departments.
  Admittedly, the hon. Member's speech was not quite so over the top as his previous speech, and I am delighted to see that he is sweetening his words. That is understandable. With the gaffes that he is making, he can only sweeten his words, because he never knows how often he will have to eat them.
  Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) ignored the fact that when the Conservative Government took office in May 1979, the NHS waiting list was 749,000? It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman is leaving the Chamber. Before the dispute that he supported, the waiting list had been reduced to 619,000. Even after that dispute, the waiting list is still much lower than it was when the Labour Members Government left office in 1979.
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is 100 per cent. correct.
  If Labour really cared about patients, the hon. Member for Oldham, West would be the first to get up and say that he wholeheartedly condemned the decision made the NUPE annual conference to abandon the TUC code of conduct about giving industrial cover for emergency services. It is important to note that Labour Members will not condemn action that they know will jeopardise the old, casualty wards, and young people.
  Although there is a whiff of hypocrisy and unreality about the debate, and although I am the first to congratulate the Minister for Health and his able deputy on their success in increasing finance for the Health Service, I must draw attention to two problems that affect my district health authority.
  I find it a peculiar paradox that the British Medical Association tells us that there are 700 junior doctors unemployed, and that 20 per cent. of junior doctors have experienced six months' unemployment over a two-year period, when in my authority in the past month a casualty ward has been closed in three hospitals, not through lack of resources or lack of finance. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh and joke but I have spoken to the administrators of those hospitals, and they have assured

  59
  me in writing and orally that it is not due to lack of finance. The difficulty that the NHS faces is a shortage of casualty locums. Surely it is not beyond the wit——
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hayes: I will give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman will be patient and let me finish the point I am making.
  It is a paradox that casualty wards are being closed not through lack of finance or resources or because of the alleged cuts that Opposition Members talk about but because people on programmed leave cannot find the locums to replace them. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at that paradox. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the DHSS to put right those imbalances.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I shall not debate with the hon. Gentleman the point that he is making. Having introduced the debate, I simply want to ask him whether he believes that health authorities should be given additional support by the Government to meet the pay increases of nurses, midwives and other sectors of the Health Service which have been recommended by the pay review bodies.
  Mr. Hayes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a wide-ranging debate. I notice that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has joined us. Sadly, I note that she is not wearing a fur coat.
  I assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that I am particularly worried that there will be difficulties in financing and funding the pay awards, which are especially generous. My right hon. and learned Friend and his able deputy, the Under-Secretary of State, have said that the Health Service should be cost-effective. That statement is greeted by the Opposition with howls of derision, but why should the Health Service be cost-effective? Why should not doctors understand the true cost of the treatment that is given to patients? Why should not the Health Service be run on a more commercial footing, so that the benefits may go directly into patient care?
  We have had the Rayner reports and the efficiency reviews, and my own health authority has been particularly good in cutting back and allocating directly to patient care the resources that have been saved. In the next few years my health authority will be gaining about £20 million extra resources for the centralisation of acute casualties. There will be benefits all over my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies as a result. However, there are problems to which I must draw the Minister's attention.
  The Government rightly say, "Make your health authority cost-effective. Run it like a commercial enterprise." Last year we had 4·2 per cent. allocated to us for pay awards. Rightly and properly, we shall have to find, on average, 8·6 per cent. for the nurses and about 12·1 per cent. for the additional workers. We have not settled on the figure for the ancillary workers, and we still have to find 6·3 per cent. for the doctors and nurses. On a half-yearly basis there will be a shortfall of £450,000. In a full financial year there will be a shortfall of £1 million.
  The shortfall will cause us several problems which, sad to say, will be reflected in patient care. It would be wrong
  60
  and irresponsible to deny it. I am grateful for the considerable efforts made by my right hon. and learned Friend and his deputy in giving an extra £500 million—an additional 5·5 per cent.—to health authorities this year.
  My health authority is not a RAWP gainer but a RAWP loser. It does not gain from the efficiencies. I know from where this funding will come. It might mean the closure of an acute ward in Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, costing £200,000, an acute ward at St. Margaret's hospital, costing £200,000, a children's ward at Herts and Essex hospital, costing £105,000, the accident and emergency department at Herts and Essex hospital at Bishop's Stortford, costing £105,000 and the associated casualty ward at the same hospital, costing £200,000, a reduction in community nursing at Waltham Abbey, costing £100,000 and the closure of the minor injuries ward at Saffron Walden hospital costing £30,000.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hayes: I shall not give way, out of deference to all those hon. Members who want to speak.
  I support the Government's policy and the amount of money that they have put into the Health Service—20 per cent. in real terms since 1978. Since then there have been 12 per cent. more in-patients, 45 per cent. more day care attendances, 52 per cent. more patients accepted for kidney failure treatment and 112 per cent. more heart bypass operations. It would be foolish and churlish to ignore that.
  I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to consider generously in the next financial settlement the plight of authorities, such as mine of West Essex, which have shown that they are prepared to make themselves cost-effective and put themselves on a commercial footing and which are not RAWP gainers but RAWP losers.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I wish to pick up some of the points of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) in my own time and in my own way. The nurses have been conned and the con trick has been compounded by hypocrisy. The Government have made great play of the fact that they are accepting the pay award. I pay great tribute to the review body, which has done a first-class job, but the Government have not accepted its recommendations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said, once again for the nurses it is jam tomorrow, never today.
  Nurses suffer from the effects of two public attitudes—the Florence Nightingale attitude, whereby nurses are expected to live on pay that is not incomparable with the pay during the Crimean war, and from the attitude of "the nurses are so good; it will be all right tomorrow". In this case, "tomorrow" does not come until next February.
  I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State did not have a good day today. He was forced to flail around a number of other subjects. The hon. Gentleman is not usually short of matters to bring up. Nurses' pay in 1985–86—I do not need to labour the figures—means that they have been short-changed. The 10-month delay is exceptional—doctors faced a two-month delay. Why have one rule for doctors and another for nurses?
  The next pay award for the nurses will be made on 1 April 1986, and the review body will have to report back

  61
  after that date. If the Government persist in their policy of phasing, in three years the nurses will have lost at least one year's worth of pay increases.
  The Under-Secretary of State referred to the board and lodging charges for the people who will get the least out of this pay packet. Whereas nurses will not receive their pay increases until the end of August, board and lodging and other service charges for nurses who work in hospitals have increased. For four months these nurses paid extra money out of a pay packet which has not yet shown their pay increases.
  The Government made great play of the fact that the nurses could have a review body on condition that they did not strike. For that reason the nurses were to have what the doctors have had since the 1960 Pilkington award. The Government know that the nurses never strike. Nurses have been disadvantaged compared with doctors. The doctors went on strike twice in 1974—first the junior doctors went on strike and then the consultants worked to rule. At that time my colleague Barbara Castle was Secretary of State. Because of the doctors' struggle in 1975 and 1976, the waiting lists increased tremendously and it took six or seven years to start to reduce the numbers. Yet there is no thought of stressing a condition of no industrial action in relation to the doctors.
  When discussing the way in which nurses' pay has been funded we always come back to what has happened before. The Prime Minister makes this point regularly. Conservative Members say that between 1974 and 1979 there was a tremendous cut in capital expenditure. I can claim some credit for that. When Barbara Castle was made Secretary of State I was privileged to attend the planning conference at Sunningdale with the chief medical officers and the various boffins who surrounded the Secretary of State. About 75 per cent. of the huge resources of the NHS go towards pay. After the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had had his four years in office, the Labour Government were faced with a choice. Once again, the Labour party came into office after a balance of payments deficit when the country was bankrupt. The choice was whether to give the money to people or to give it to buildings. Should the money be given to nurses or towards more equipment? I believe that the Labour Government were right to cut capital expenditure. The nurses' only good pay award was the 1974 Halsbury award. They could not have been given that award had the Labour Government not been prepared to cut capital expenditure so that nurses could have a fair deal.
  The North-West Thames regional health authority is the authority for my area. I received an emergency notice stating that this year the authority has to find another £2 million. This is disastrous for economic planning, because budget estimates are made at the beginning of the year. What happens if, half-way through the year, the authority is told that it has £2 million less? It is nonsense for the Under-Secretary of State to say that these measures will not interfere with patient care. They can do nothing else but interfere. The Government cannot suddenly say in the middle of the year that the authority has to take £2 million out of the amount budgeted for, and claim that this will not interfere with patient care.
  For three years every regional health authority was given a certain increase in its budget—about 0·5 per cent. for the North-West Thames regional health authority—through the RAWP formula. The North-West Thames
  62
  regional health authority has had a tough time. During the past three years a percentage of the increase has been for efficiency savings. It is money that is not given but has to be found within the budget. For three years there have been cuts in each of the regions, under the various budget headings, to make efficiency savings.
  The wretched computer is a further con for the nurses because it cannot make payments before the end of August. Therefore, although the announcement was made in June, nurses do not see the money until four months after it is due. I know of no other employees who receive such treatment, yet we pay lip service to nurses and say how marvellous they are.
  The Minister keeps saying that the Department does not yet know what it will receive from the Exchequer next year, and that it is still making estimates. The North-West Thames regional health authority now has a chairman, Mr. Doughty, and a general manager, Mr. Kenny, who has the same job that he held previously, but has been given more money and a fresh title. They say that next year £6 million more will be needed for nurses' pay on this award alone. Taken over the whole country, next year there will be another increase in nurses' pay. Therefore, unless the Government do a U-turn in their public expenditure policies, the money will not be available.
  The second cheat relates to the £240 million which should have been paid on 1 April but which will start to be paid at only 5 per cent. at the end of August. Therefore, the Government will borrow money from the nurses for four months. Every year out of the kindness of its heart the Department of Social Security gives pensioners a £10 bonus. Considering the present rates of interest, if the Government have any sense of justice, they could give nurses in their Christmas pay packets the amount of accrued interest which the nurses will have lost during four months.
  We bandy figures about, and I know no better jugglers of figures than the Minister for Health and the Secretary of State for Social Services. One minute money is there, the next it is not. I do not accept that the productivity argument for industry and commerce applies to the NHS.
  Mr. John Patten: In my introductory remarks I said that, net of the reduction in the nurses' working week, 18,900 more nurses were on the wards than in 1979. Does that or does that not represent an improvement in health care in England?
  Mr. Pavitt: That does not. The reduction in the working week from 40 to 37·5 hours accounts for a great deal of that. The latest figure I have from the Department of Employment shows that 9,500 nurses are on the dole. As I said earlier, the Minister chooses the figures to make selected points.
  If the Department of Employment could announce to the House that 650,000 more people were in full-time employment and that 2·5 million more people were in part-time employment, that would be a success. However, when one learns that 650,000 more people are chronically ill and need hospitalisation, and that 2·5 million more people are so ill that they must be referred by their general practitioner to an out-patients department, that is a failure. It is a reflection of sick people in a sick society. There cannot be 4 million people unemployed without all the stress and problems that the NHS must counteract accumulating.

  63
  The Government have deceived the nurses by the funding of the pay award. I hope that the nurses will remember that when the Minister, or, if all the prophets are right and he climbs up the ladder before we return from the summer recess, his successor next deals with the subject. I hope that in the Queen's Speech he will guarantee that next year the nurses will not have a con trick played on them, as they had this year.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I welcome and congratulate the new hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). I am sorry to see that, having burst into the debate, he rushed out quickly; I hope that he does not find the House so fearsome that he has returned to the Brecon Beacons so soon. Today he has witnessed mark 2 of a Lib-Lab pact, with an appendix written by the Social Democratic party. When the debate is reported the public will know that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) did an Armageddon job on the state of affairs in the National Health Service, and that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who is almost Armageddon itself, completely agreed with the speeches from the SDP Bench. We saw a similar great unity at the end of the 1970s, which led us into the disastrous position that then produced a large Conservative majority to run the country and the NHS properly.
  I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health said in his interventions, and what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security said about the Government's record on the NHS. The hon. member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who also burst into the debate and rushed off, asked whether we had received compliments from our constituents. My constituents who have been treated at Kingston hospital—the main hospital in the Kingston and Esher district health authority—are full of compliments for the doctors' and nurses' services, the food, the cleanliness, and every other aspect. If the hospital's record is ever attacked in the press, anybody who has been treated there jumps to its defence.
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend will undoubtedly have seen the recent Marplan poll which showed that 90 per cent. of those asked were satisfied and felt that they were well cared for by the NHS.
  Mr. Tracey: I have seen that Marplan poll, and I noted that the Audit Commission found a similar high standard in the NHS when its officers reported.
  Throughout the Health Service there are undoubtedly more doctors, more nurses, more out-patients being treated, more highly technical operations carried out, such as heart bypasses and kidney transplants, more dental treatment and a large hospital building programme. I welcome the Government's decision on the nurses' pay award.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye has asked when we shall spell out how we shall pay for the extra award to the nurses, if we do not take money from the contingency fund. I refer him to the words of the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It states that the Government
  "welcomes the 5·5 per cent. increase in health authority and health board funding which, together with the extra resources
  64
  gained from cost improvement programmes, will enable service developments to take place in addition to the funding of the pay award."
  That is the key factor, and answers his question in plain language.
  Mr. Kennedy: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question which the Under-Secretary of State, who spoke about many issues which had nothing to do with nurses' pay or the funding of health authorities, was not keen to answer? Will he answer the economic argument based on the Government's figures, which I spelled out in my speech? Is it not the case that, when the percentage figure in the Government's motion is analysed under the constraints against which the Government measure health spending, in the present year there will be a 3 per cent. cut?
  Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman made that point earlier, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will answer it with complete authority.
  My main reason for speaking in the debate is to stress that substantial savings can be made through the cost-effectiveness programmes. In May this year, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, answering a question in the House, said that £13·1 million savings had been made from cost-effectiveness programmes, £10·7 million as a result of contracts going out to tender and £2·7 million as a result of in-house savings after putting services out to tender. Those savings have been made in only a few district health authorities—the ones that have grasped the nettle, carried through the process faithfully and contracted out their services.
  It is possible to achieve anything up to the remarkable savings—58 per cent.—made by Merton and Sutton district health authority on the cleaning of St. Helier hospital at Carshalton. The in-house service cost 1·4 million, and the new service costs £583,000.
  Why will not Opposition Members, whether from the Labour party or from the other half of the new Lib-Lab pact, encourage trade unions to pursue those policies in better faith? Why do they always wish to destroy the efforts of district health authorities to put services out to tender? Why must the TUC produce propaganda documents——
  Mr. Corbyn: Trade unions oppose the privatisation of cleaning and other services because the job is done less efficiently by private enterprise, and workers have worse conditions, lower wages, shorter holidays and fewer work prospects.
  Mr. Tracey: That is an almost perfect paraphrase of the propaganda that one hears from Opposition Members.
  Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend mentioned the considerable savings made at St. Helier hospital. Alas, I must report to the House that one criticism of the district health authority was that the standard of work done by NHS employees was lower than the standard of work carried out by private contractors. It should not have been the case, but unfortunately it was.
  Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wish to illustrate how far from the truth was the intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). There is no doubt that the TUC and the Health Service unions have pursued a campaign of destruction and cynicism when attempts are made by district health authorities to put

  65
  services out to tender. A classic example was Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge, whose problems have been reported in the House and outside by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant).
  I end with the specific example of Barking hospital. Following a strike by cleaners in March 1984, the TUC reported a lack of regular and effective cleaning, resulting in the presence of grease, dirt and cockroaches. At the request of trade union representatives, an inspector from the Health and Safety Executive made three visits to the hospital. He reported:
  "As you know, I have recently made a series of visits to Barking Hospital to look at the standard of cleaning. I have visited in my opinion a reasonable cross-section of wards, public areas and service areas. On each occasion the hospital has been very clean and I have no cause to criticise. Accordingly I have no recommendation to make."
  That report was made during the first year of the contract. It has been renewed by Redbridge district health authority for a further four years, which represents a saving of £150,000 a year and a total saving of £750,000. Such savings could he made in many district health authorities, and they would more than adequately fund part of the nurses' pay award.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) has just demonstrated everything that the Tory party hates about the Health Service. Conservative Members hate Health Service workers, especially the lowest-paid ancillary workers. That is why they are trying to destroy their jobs through privatisation, and their living standards through the inevitable cuts in wages and working conditions that follow privatisation. The brave people at Barking and Addenbrooke's hospitals, who fought for the principle of high standards of cleanliness in hospitals, deserve more praise than the hon. Gentleman gave to them.
  I am sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, which, with other unions, has many members among nurses and midwives in the NHS. The speeches of Conservative Members have not adequately demonstrated to the House the attitude of nurses and midwives to the Government and to the pay increase that has been offered. It is one of disgust and anger, and of shame at being stuck between a Government who will not adequately fund the Health Service and increasing demands for better health care. They are told that the real problem in the Health Service is high pay. That is why they are so angry about what the Government say about them.
  NUPE has produced a substantial document entitled "End Poverty Pay—A Strategy for the 1980s", which tries to describe the erosion of the wages of local government and Health Service workers. It states:
  "Each year we are climbing up an escalator that is moving down, as the rising cost of living cuts away at our living standards. In some years we can beat inflation and our members are better off. But the Government is making it more and more difficult to climb the escalator, blocking our way with cash limits, the threat of job cuts and the threat of privatisation. So in some years the pay rises we are offered do not even match the cost of living."
  That is true of the pay increases that have been offered to some nurses and midwives.
  I should tell the House how appallingly low NHS pay is. Under existing pay arrangements for ancillary staff, who are the lowest paid in the NHS, 58·7 per cent. earn
  66
  less than £100 a week, 92 per cent. earn less than £150 a week and 10 per cent. earn less than £68·70 a week. By any standards, those wages are disgraceful. Before the Government's announcement, 33·1 per cent. of nurses and midwives earned less than £100 a week, 74·1 per cent. earned less than £150 a week and 10 per cent. earned less than £80·60 a week.
  Everyone recognises that those who work in the Health Service, in whatever grade, have valuable and responsible jobs. Nurses and midwives are doing extremely valuable and skilled work. How many Conservative Members would be prepared to live on those wages? How many of them go round the country saying what a splendid job the nurses do, but are not prepared to pay them for the work that they must do? That is the issue facing us.
  Under the Government, the way in which the poverty trap and the funding of the Health Service and local government work means that the people who have lost out most are already the worst off, and their prospects, particularly those of the nurses after this settlement, are not very good. There are 550,000 people employed as nurses, which is 484,000 whole-time equivalent jobs.
  To give a couple of examples of the sort of pay levels I speak of, a nursing auxiliary will get an increase of £3·30 per week as a result of the settlement. Even under the retail price index figures·and people do not live on the retail price index but on what they can afford to buy and to eat—nursing auxiliaries should have an increase of £5 per week. A sister will get an increase of £36·42 per month. All these figures are verifiable, and in my view they are disgraceful.
  Conservative Members have made great play of the way in which they believe hospital waiting lists are being reduced and, indeed, of the way in which they believe Health Service expenditure has gone up. I wish to quote from a letter written by Mr. D. J. Holdstock, MD, FRCP, of Ashford hospital, Middlesex, which appeared in The Guardian of 13 July:
  "Mr. Clarke claims that the NHS is treating more people. Like most statistics emanating from the Elephant and Castle, this is a myth. Many patients, particularly the mentally ill and elderly, are readmitted many times, having been discharged not because they are well enough to remain in the community, but to make room for others who are worse. Mr. Clarke's figures refer to numbers of admissions, not individuals. Community care, when it is available, is labour-intensive and therefore expensive; often it is a euphemism for care by hard-pressed and unsupported neighbours or relatives."
  Many people in the country would support that statement and agree with it wholeheartedly.
  The Government stand condemned for their attitude towards the Health Service and Health Service workers, whom they expect to bear the brunt of Government cuts in the Health Service and of hospital closures, of which more than 200 have occurred since the Government came into office. The Government expect these people to care for those who have been so badly treated by a Government who claim that they support the National Health Service when in reality they are reducing Health Service standards in the country. If hon. Members cared to talk to people who work in hospitals and to people who are or who expect to be patients in hospitals, they will observe a dangerously low level of morale and a deep feeling of anger towards the Government. People look forward to the day when the Government are swept out of office and those who genuinely care about the health of the people of the country are put into office.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I am glad that so many hon. Members have taken part in this important debate even though some were rather wide of the mark in their comments. I had hoped that we would have more of substance from the Under-Secretary. I had hoped that we might have had a rather more formidable attack on the form of words of the motion and a more passionate defence of the amendment.
  At one point, the hon. Gentleman used some figures to match nurses' pay to inflation. It is important that we study the figures carefully. Their validity depends on what base year one uses. If one takes the base year of 1979, there has been some increase in the comparison between nurses' pay and inflation since that time. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) the fact remains that, if one considers the year following the 1975 Halsbury report and awards, nurses' pay has not yet got back to that same level.
  Mr. James Couchman: Under the Lib-Lab pact.
  Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) assists me in his reference to a pact. I would be as critical if not more critical of members of the Labour Government who allowed nurses' pay to slip back more than the Conservatives.
  The figure dropped between 1975 and 1978, it picked up a little in 1979—and we might speculate on the reasons for that—and it picked up still further in 1980, but it has dropped back since and has never returned to the 1979 level.
  The Under-Secretary also challenged us on patient numbers. He said that we ought to come clean on whether we were prepared to accept that more patients were treated. Of course I accept that. There is some element of double counting of people. He referred to the number of treatments. If people are discharged early and have to go back into hospital, they count as two patients in the figures. This should be recognised.
  One cannot always measure the adequacy of care by the number of patients treated. I have referred on other occasions to renal work. The local health authority in Leeds is delighted to have less dialysis done because this means that more transplants are carried out. It wishes to see a reduction in the number of patients because this means better health care. As large mental health institutions are closed, there will be fewer patients in NHS care, but more people out in the community, and again, the figures will go down. Therefore, I do not see that the number of patients being treated is an adequate measure of improvement in the Health Service. I would argue with the hon. Gentleman, as I have done on other occasions, that the Government might better claim that the health of a country has improved because fewer people are being treated than claim that this is so because more people are being treated.
  The Minister then tried to drive a wedge between the two parties in the alliance. I will give him the official alliance policy position. It has to be recognised that, in the great mass parties in the Chamber, there are differences between all sorts of people. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) veered a bit here and a bit there, but he expressed his opinion. He was not entirely without criticism. That will happen with all mass parties.
  68
  Ultimately, one has to come down to some agreed statement, and I will give it to the Minister. The joint programme for the last election, in 1983, stated:
  "the continuing commitment of all NHS staff is vital if the health service is to deliver the best care it can. This means that NHS staff must be properly and fairly treated. We gave our commitment … to determine pay in the public services by a new system based on fair comparison with other groups and a fair arbitration procedure which will also apply to NHS staff."
  I think that that is straightforward. The Minister asked for it, and he has it.
  After that, we went all round the block—defence, nuclear power and even jazz. I am not averse to a plug for the band—heaven knows we need it—but with no admission fees. I am also worried about the reference to the band because I have maintained my reputation as a musician by never playing in public, and I was hoping to continue in that.
  What is rather alarming—it may be a new trend in the speeches of the Minister—is that, just when I thought that he was going to return to the motion and to the peroration, he sat down. I could not understand this. Not only was there no peroration, but there was no finger wagging. Where is the Minister without some finger wagging?
  It was a pleasure to hear the contribution of my new hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). Indeed, I anticipate that the increased frequency of the alliance Opposition days will coincide with the increased frequency of being able to welcome new Members representing the Liberal party.
  The hon. Member for Harlow baffled me. He started off as a straightforward pure monetarist. I thought that he was going to go straightforwad down the line. He then veered in a centre forward direction but, before he could get right into that camp, he drew back from the brink. At the end, I thought that there was a slight warning. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) should beware if the hon. Member for Harlow sends him a post-dated cheque because the cheque will certainly be cancelled long before the right hon. Gentleman gets round to cashing it.
  We then heard the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), who, I thought, was unnecessarily snide and looked for ulterior motives. I do not believe that there is a monopoly of compassion in any political party. I have never been one who wishes to look into people's hearts and minds to find some ulterior motive. One accepts the debate on the terms in which it is framed and put forward. Thus, if things are right, they should be supported and, if they are wrong, one should oppose them rather than look for some ulterior motive. If things are as good as the hon. Gentleman set out, why has there been virtually no increase in male life expectancy in the 40 years since the inception of the National Health Service? It is not enough to say that things are wonderful, that the Government are doing a great job and that we ought to be able to support everything that they do.
  The hon. Gentleman went on about privatisation. The Select Committee report published a week ago says that, although we have had pressure for privatisation for four years, that process has not yet "brought home the bacon". It is difficult for people in the Health Service to count and treble-count the same efficiency savings that the Government are demanding.
  I said in an intervention that about 25 per cent. of spending does not go on staff, so the spending available

  69
  from which cuts can be made is smaller than many people imagine. It has not been proved that it is wise from an economic or from a service point of view to cut staff numbers and their pay.
  The logic of a pay review is that, if there is to be independent inspection of pay, the Government must fund it. The psychological effect on nurses of having to fight for pay increases at the expense of the service to which they are committed is immoral and insupportable.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) on his election and on his maiden speech. He spoke with admirable brevity and clarity and with patent sincerity. I am sure that we all wish him well and trust that he will represent his constituents as well as his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Tom Hooson, whom we all miss.
  When the hon. Gentleman referred to his constituency and matters relevant to this debate, he slipped into one or two factual errors. He talked of a 3·5 per cent. cash increase to his health authority, which has received a 4·5 per cent. cash increase. He also heavily laboured the effect of this year's pay award on the finances of Powys health authority. It is costing that authority £22,000 more than it was planning—0·1 per cent. of its revenue allocation—and Powys is one of those authorities which is unaffected by this year's award. I trust that, away from the rhetoric of the by-election, we shall find that, as with everything else the hon. Gentleman said, he devotes himself to the problems of his health authority. I hope that he will consider the terms of the first alliance motion that he has been asked to support.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarthy and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) tried to construct a great deal of bad news out of the opening of a new hospital in the Highlands. He also tried to create a good deal of bad news out of this year's review body recommendations and the pay awards for nurses and midwives. That seemed to be the whole point of the argument advanced by the Liberal, Social Democratic and Labour Opposition. They cannot sweep away the underlying good news for nurses, and those who have their interests at heart, of this year's pay award. With the exception of one or two speeches, I detected no criticism of the review body system, or of the size of the award that we are giving.
  The creation of the nurses and midwives review body is one of the Government's major achievements. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, it opens up the prospect of nurses' pay no longer being dealt with by those pre-general election one-off gestures. We now have a permanent system which will give the Government the advice of independent people about the right level of pay for nurses and which will put Governments under an obligation to honour its recommendations.
  If the national interest determines it, we will not follow the body's recommendations, but normally, as this year, I am sure that the Government will implement the recommended pay awards. I do not meet many nurses who think that they would be better off going back to what preceded the review body system which the Government have set up.
  I listened with care to see whether any of the Opposition parties would commit themselves to the review body. Before we announced the award, the Leader of the
  70
  Opposition went to the Royal College of Nursing conference and threw out vague figures about the money that Labour might give nurses. I do not think that he expected the level of the full-year award that was about to be forthcoming and hope that what he said was not intended to imply that, under Labour, we should go back to some form of bargaining process. We ought to know whether the review body is safe under Labour.
  The alliance is meant to believe in pay policy. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) described what I admit was a fairly generalised passage from the alliance's last election manifesto concerning the arbitration arrangements that might be set up for all public sector workers. If I were a nurse, I am not at all sure that I should be happy to exchange the review body system that we have given to them because of the regard in which we hold them and because they do not take strike action against their patients, unlike other key public sector workers and their clients, for some form of Liberal pay policy for all public sector workers. When, under the Lib-Lab pact, there was pay policy, nurses did especially badly compared with inflation and other workers.
  After the Halsbury award, between June 1974 and April 1979, nurses' pay went up by 65 per cent., whereas the retail prices index went up by 97 per cent. That is the record of the Labour Government and the Lib-Lab pact and their pay policy. Before this year's award, we had begun to redress the balance. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained the effect of this year's award. By March 1985—before that award—the pay bill had increased by 126 per cent. because it was already 23 per cent. ahead of prices and we had cut hours from 40 to 37·5 a week. We had also employed 57,000 more whole-time equivalents in England. This year's award gives an average of 9 per cent. in a full year across the profession, up to 14 per cent. for sisters and up to 11 per cent. for staff nurses. That is an extremely good settlement.
  The Opposition have to challenge what I believe is undilutedly good news for the Health Service by means of this motion on how the award will be funded. It is being funded as we always said it would be and in a way which health authorities can perfectly well contend with while delivering the patient services that we require. We have said from the word go that the cash limits for the Health Service this year would be increased by 5·5 per cent. We had to say what the Government could afford for the whole NHS, and not divide it artificially.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) described the process clearly. I parody what he said, but we do not collect from the Treasury—nor would any Government—one pile of pound notes labelled "services" and another pile labelled "pay." There is a cash limit, which Governments have always determined. We told the review body of that limit. I do not care what anybody said in the Select Committee. I was at the negotiations with the Treasury when we agreed that the cash limit covered everything. There was no 3 per cent. norm for anybody. Therefore, when the review body made its recommendations, it knew what it was working within.
  The chairman of the review body made it clear in public statements that he left the timing and implementation of an award which he knew amounted to 9 per cent. in a full year to the Government. We had to make a judgment, and we made a judgment precisely to avoid the dangers of which the motion accuses us.

  71
  We knew that health authority limits in England were going up by £500 million and that health authorities had identified for us £150 million which could be provided through cost improvements—not efficiency savings as some people have called them, and certainly not cuts. Those cost improvements did not affect patient care. We therefore decided that we could pay nurses in two instalments, so the total cost fell as £240 million in one year.
  Hon. Members have tried to find anecdotal evidence to the contrary. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye ought to go back to his stray delegate at Cardiff from Teesside and ask how on earth a 2 per cent. cut is being forced on that authority as a result of the figures that I have given. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and even my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), threw in examples of health authorities with all kinds of difficulties, but none of those difficulties was attributable to nurses' pay.
  The fact is that at the new Arrowe Hall hospital in Birkenhead, at the new Oldham hospital being built at Oldham and in my health authority and others, services and increased pay are going hand in hand because we are giving more money. The alliance even tried to outdo us in money. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye said that the alliance would increase expenditure by 1·5 per cent. each year in economic cost terms. If we had followed that modest target, health authorities would have £500 million less to spend than they have. He is promising——
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided:: Ayes 154, Noes 233.

  Division No. 271]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ashton, Joe

  Craigen, J. M.

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Crowther, Stan

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Benn, Tony

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Deakins, Eric

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dewar, Donald

  Blair, Anthony

  Dixon, Donald

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dobson, Frank

  Boyes, Roland

  Dormand, Jack

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Buchan, Norman

  Eadie, Alex

  Caborn, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

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

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Ewing, Harry

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fatchett, Derek

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Clay, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Flannery, Martin

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Foster, Derek

  Corbett, Robin

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Garrett, W. E.

  Cowans, Harry

  George, Bruce

  72

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Nellist, David

  Golding, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gourlay, Harry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Park, George

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Parry, Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Pendry, Tom

  Haynes, Frank

  Penhaligon, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Pike, Peter

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Prescott, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Radice, Giles

  Howells, Geraint

  Randall, Stuart

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Rooker, J. W.

  John, Brynmor

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lambie, David

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lamond, James

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Short, Mrs R.(Whampt'n NE)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Snape, Peter

  Litherland, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Livsey, Richard

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stott, Roger

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McKelvey, William

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Tinn, James

  McTaggart, Robert

  Wainwright, R.

  McWilliam, John

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Madden, Max

  Wareing, Robert

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wilson, Gordon

  Maxton, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Meacher, Michael

  Michie, William

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and Mr. Charles Kennedy.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Browne, John

  Amess, David

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Arnold, Tom

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Budgen, Nick

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

  Cash, William

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Blackburn, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Coombs, Simon

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cope, John

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Corrie, John

  Bright, Graham

  Couchman, James

  Brinton, Tim

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Crouch, David

  73

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Neale, Gerrard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Needham, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Dover, Den

  Neubert, Michael

  Dunn, Robert

  Newton, Tony

  Durant, Tony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dykes, Hugh

  Normanton, Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Onslow, Cranley

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Osborn, Sir John

  Evennett, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Fallon, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Favell, Anthony

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Pollock, Alexander

  Forman, Nigel

  Porter, Barry

  Forth, Eric

  Portillo, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Fox, Marcus

  Powley, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Price, Sir David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Raffan, Keith

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Renton, Tim

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hayes, J.

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hayward, Robert

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Henderson, Barry

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hickmet, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hicks, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  Hill, James

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Hind, Kenneth

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Holt, Richard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Howard, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Silvester, Fred

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  Jessel, Toby

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Key, Robert

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knowles, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Speed, Keith

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Speller, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spencer, Derek

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Lightbown, David

  Squire, Robin

  Lilley, Peter

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lord, Michael

  Stanley, John

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Steen, Anthony

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maclean, David John

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Madel, David

  Sumberg, David

  Major, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Marlow, Antony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Mather, Carol

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Moore, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Waddington, David

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Walden, George

  Murphy, Christopher

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  74

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ward, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Yeo, Tim

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wheeler, John

  Whitney, Raymond

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Ian Lang and Peter Lloyd.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):——
  The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 148.

  Division No. 272]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dunn, Robert

  Amess, David

  Durant, Tony

  Ancram, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Emery, Sir Peter

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

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Baldry, Tony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fallon, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Favell, Anthony

  Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forman, Nigel

  Blackburn, John

  Forth, Eric

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  Bottomley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Glyn, Dr Alan

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

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Brinton, Tim

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Browne, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Henderson, Barry

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hickmet, Richard

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hicks, Robert

  Budgen, Nick

  Hill, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Hind, Kenneth

  Butcher, John

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Butterfill, John

  Holt, Richard

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hordern, Sir Peter Howell

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Cash, William

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Key, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knowles, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Knox, David

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Lang, Ian

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Colvin, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Coombs, Simon

  Lilley, Peter

  Cope, John

  Lord, Michael

  Corrie, John

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Couchman, James

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Cranborne, Viscount

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Critchley, Julian

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Crouch, David

  Maclean, David John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Madel, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Major, John

  Dover, Den

  Malins, Humfrey

  75

  Marlow, Antony

  Sims, Roger

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mates, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mather, Carol

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Speed, Keith

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Speller, Tony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spencer, Derek

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Squire, Robin

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stanley, John

  Moore, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Stern, Michael

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Needham, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Newton, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Normanton, Tom

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Tracey, Richard

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Viggers, Peter

  Pollock, Alexander

  Waddington, David

  Porter, Barry

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Portillo, Michael

  Walden, George

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Powley, John

  Waller, Gary

  Price, Sir David

  Ward, John

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Raffan, Keith

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Renton, Tim

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wheeler, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Whitney, Raymond

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Ryder, Richard

  Woodcock, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Yeo, Tim

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Peter Lloyd.

  Shersby, Michael

  Silvester, Fred

  NOES

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Beith, A. J.

  Clarke, Thomas

  Benn, Tony

  Clay, Robert

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Blair, Anthony

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Corbett, Robin

  Boyes, Roland

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cowans, Harry

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Crowther, Stan

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dalyell, Tam

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Caborn, Richard

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

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Deakins, Eric

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dewar, Donald

  76

  Dixon, Donald

  McWilliam, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Madden, Max

  Dormand, Jack

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Dubs, Alfred

  Maxton, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Meacher, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Michie, William

  Eastham, Ken

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Ewing, Harry

  Nellist, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fisher, Mark

  Parry, Robert

  Flannery, Martin

  Patchett, Terry

  Foster, Derek

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Pendry, Tom

  Garrett, W. E.

  Penhaligon, David

  George, Bruce

  Pike, Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Prescott, John

  Golding, John

  Radice, Giles

  Gould, Bryan

  Randall, Stuart

  Gourlay, Harry

  Redmond, M.

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Robertson, George

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rogers, Allan

  Haynes, Frank

  Rooker, J. W.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Home Robertson, John

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Howells, Geraint

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

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Snape, Peter

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  John, Brynmor

  Stott, Roger

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Lambie, David

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Lamond, James

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Tinn, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Wainwright, R.

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Livsey, Richard

  Wareing, Robert

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wilson, Gordon

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Woodall, Alec

  McKelvey, William

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McNamara, Kevin

  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on implementing the recommendations of the Health Service Pay Review Bodies and awarding a fair pay increase to all the staff concerned, with particularly high awards for staff nurses and ward sisters; notes that nurses' pay has risen by 23 per cent. in real terms between April 1979 and March 1985 and will rise significantly this year as a result of the Review Body award; welcomes the 5·5 per cent. increase in health authority and health board funding which, together with the extra resources gained from cost improvement programmes, will enable service developments to take place in addition to the funding of the pay award; and notes with approval the continuing increases in the number of patients treated by the Health Service.

  GLC Lorry Ban (Judgment)
  7.23 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport for permission to come to the House and make a statement on the findings of Mr. Justice McNeill today in the High Court? According to The London Standard, Mr. Justice McNeill informed the court that the Secretary of State's refusal to approve the GLC ban on lorries was "unreasonable, irrational and unlawful." The article states that,
  "in issuing a 'direction' last February that the ban could not go ahead without a public inquiry,"
  the Secretary of State had "exceeded his powers" under the Road Traffic (Regulation) Act 1984. It adds:
  "The Minister did not have the power under the Act to force them to hold a public inquiry, said the judge."
  This is not the first time that the Secretary of State has been found to be acting in an unlawful, unacceptable and certainly unreasonable manner. We cannot understand why he has not seen fit, even at this late hour, to come to the House not only to apologise for his irrational behaviour, but at least to make it clear that he had no right to attack the GLC in the manner he did.
  Mr. John Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: What is more, his intention in so doing was totally unlawful. May I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I could anticipate the further point of order, the hon. Lady should come to her point of order now.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you are aware that the Prime Minister today told American lawyers in London that the desire for justice imposes very firm requirements on the politician?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must come to her point of order.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: In view of the Prime Minister's statement that
  "unstinting support for the courts which administer the law and for the police who enforce it"
  is the first duty of politicians, why cannot the Secretary of State come to the House and tell us why he is behaving in this arrogant and arbitrary fashion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer to the hon. Lady's point of order is that I have not received any such request.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be in keeping with the traditions of the House that when a serious matter is raised in the courts, once again catching out this ridiculous Secretary of State who is clearly a recidivist, there should be a statement at the earliest possible opportunity? Surely that is something the Opposition can expect.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State and the Leader of the House have heard the exchanges and will doubtless take them into account.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any procedure whereby the Secretary of State can come here? I am sure that he would welcome an opportunity to make a statement this evening. Can you tell us how to ensure that that happens?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: On a hypothesis, if a request were to be made, the Chair would have to consider it and seek an appropriate moment for the Minister to make his statement. I have received no such request.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible that the matter is sub judice? I understand that the Secretary of State may be considering an appeal. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know nothing about the judgment. I have heard references to what has been reported in The London Standard, but I prefer to see some harder facts. In any case, it is not a matter for me—nor is the hypothetical question of an appeal. The only issue to which I have to respond is whether I have received a request for a statement to be made, and the answer is no.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While accepting that something in The London Standard is not necessarily a hard fact, it is a hard fact that the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House are here. Are they going to make a statement? If not, are they going to inform you when they intend to make a statement? This is the second time that the present Secretary of State has been held in the courts to have acted irrationally and unlawfully in relation to the GLC. It is time that he came to the House to explain what he is doing.
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible that the Secretary of State has not yet received the judgment and is awaiting it before coming to the House'? On the previous occasion, legislation was rushed through the House to make legal a previously illegal action by the Secretary of State. The House is surely entitled to know whether that is going to happen again.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a former probation officer, may I offer my services to the Secretary of State? We all make mistakes occasionally. We are all allowed one, but on the second occasion there is an indication that rehabilitation is needed.
  We seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the Prime Minister's comments. She said:
  "The first heresy is that if only a determined minority gather together"——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise a point of order about what the Prime Minister is supposed to have said at a meeting today.
  Mr. Soley: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister was saying that a minority could not be used to break the law. A member of a minority group—the Government—has been found guilty of breaking the law on two occasions, and that must be a serious matter. We are asking the Minister to give an explanation to Parliament. Having been found guilty before the courts on two occasions, he ought to come to the House and make a statement.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We all support

  79
  the rule of law. I wonder whether you could advise hon. Members what they should tell constituents when the courts tell us that the Secretary of State for Transport has twice acted irrationally and unlawfully? How are we to explain to our constituents that the country is being run by Secretaries of State who are clearly irrational and behave unlawfully?
  Mr. Roland Boyes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) underestimates the magnitude of the problem. As a former assistant director of social services, I believe that this is a section 25 job. I shall be consulting my social services colleagues in London to se whether instant action can be taken against the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters for me, and I cannot give advice to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). The only question to which I have to respond is whether I have received any indication of a wish to make a statement. I have received no such indication. If there is a will to make a statement, no doubt I shall receive a request.
  Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek confirmation as a genuine point of order. Further to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), will you confirm that it is not possible under the general law for an hon. Member to be subject to section 25 procedure, except with the written consent of Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know nothing about section 25. Standing Orders are enough for me to worry about.

Orders of the Day
  Oil and Pipelines Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered
  Oil and Pipelines Bill
    New Clause 1

      SECURITY OF SUPPLY AGREEMENT
      '(1) The Agency shall have power to enter into agreements, on behalf of the Crown and at the request of the Secretary of State to secure the supply of petroleum and petroleum products.
      (2) Such agreements shall include provision that—

      (a) the Company with production from the United Kingdom continental shelf shall continue to supply United Kingdom customers with crude oil and petroleum products with at least the quantities supplied over the previous year or contracted to supply over the coming year, and will increase the supply where possible and will use its transportation and distribution system for this purpose; and

      (b) the Company will make supplies at the prices ruling at the time of request (or as otherwise determined by law and regulations)'.—[Mr. Rowlands.]

      (c) Brought up and read the First time.
      7.35 pm
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      In the 10 sittings and nearly 30 hours of the Committee stage, there was a common thread to our arguments. Our charge throughout the proceedings on the Bill has been that the abolition of the British National Oil Corporation will weaken and undermine many aspects of the security of our oil supplies. We believe that BNOC's control over about 800,000 barrels of North sea oil represented one of the vital means of ensuring our supplies in times of shortage.
      The Minister of State, Department of Energy argued repeatedly in Committee and on Second Reading that he had a combination of powers and arrangements to ensure the security of our oil supplies. One part of that combination·and, therefore, a part of the right hon. Gentleman's defence in supporting the abolition of the BNOC—was that he had a series of security-of-supply assurances from the major oil companies, particularly those with refining capacity in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman claimed that he could afford not to activate the participation agreements for six or 12 months.
      I asked the Minister on Second Reading about the character of those assurances. He said that he could not give us information at that time, but would consider enlightening us in Committee. However, he said that the assurances from the major oil companies were informal.
      The matter was not raised in detail in Committee—the new clause breaks new ground—but we put some sensible and reasonable questions to the Minister about his dependence on those assurances. He told us that he could say no more than he had said on Second Reading, which was very little.
      Therefore, we need further advice from the Minister about the nature of the assurances that he has received. We believe that the assurances should be formal agreements with the oil companies. My support for that view was

      81
      strengthened when I read an article in today's Financial Times about a letter that might be typical of the assurances on which the right hon. Gentleman is dependent.
      The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the report in the Financial Times about the letter of assurance from BP to the Department of Energy. Is that typical of the informal assurances that he holds from the major oil companies? Are they in the form of a letter from an oil company manager to a civil servant at the Department of Energy? The illustration in the Financial Times is not even a letter from an oil company chairman to the Secretary of State for Energy; I do not know whether a letter from a chairman would increase or diminish the strength of the assurances, but it gives us no comfort to believe that the assurances may be only informal letters from oil company managers to civil servants.
      The second and revelant question is whether, if the letter mentioned in the Financial Times is a typical example of the assurances, the right hon. Gentleman has received any advice about the contractual strength of those assurances. Would such an assurance be legally binding if a dispute arose about its terms?
      Although the letter quoted in the Financial Times is dated November 1983, it may be one of the assurances received by the Minister of State. If it is not, I should be pleased to hear how the Minister has strengthened the assurances. More important, I want to ask the Minister about the terms of such an assurance. In the letter, the assurance is given in very general terms. About the types of supplies being offered in times of shortage or crisis, we are told in the letter that the oil company—in this case, BP—would be keeping customers supplied
      "in accordance with the relevant contracts and established patterns of business."
      If a shortage occurs or there is a potential crisis and pressures grow, those words could mean almost anything to anyone, especially to the oil company giving the assurance. Many of these established patterns of business may involve contracts with terminal dates. There may be very short-term arrangements with the companies concerned. How strong, reasonable and effective would such an assurance be at a time of shortage or crisis?
      We also ask the Minister about the reference in this supply assurance letter, if it is still in force, to a total disclaimer on prices. The letter of assurance says that BP
      "makes the above affirmation subject further to there being no legal or governmental constraint on its ability to raise prices as a necessary means of recovering costs."
      It appears that a fundamental condition of the assurance is that, in return, the Government have to assure the oil company that they will make no endeavour to restrain or to restrict price increases in times of shortage. Those phrases cannot be read in any other way. It appears that, in return for a very general assurance about oil supplies, the Government will have to accept that there will be no intervention in the prices that BP wishes to charge during a time of shortage or potential crisis. That is a serious commitment to make in return for the very general assurance offered by BP.
      We do not know whether the letter dated November 1983 is the type of assurance that the Minister told the Committee he had. We do not know whether it is out of date. We do not know whether, since that date, the assurances have been strengthened or improved. However, the Opposition wish to register their objection to a general
      82
      assurance of this kind combined with a disclaimer, because it does not add up to an effective form of assurance.
      Mr. Michael Portillo: During the last supply difficulty that we experienced, the Government attempted to restrain prices and the result was a shortage of petrol. Why is the hon. Gentleman so dismayed that there should be that disclaimer?
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: I am dismayed because it seems unreasonable that, when Britain is a large oil producer, there should not be some reasonable relationship between its production and refining capacity and the prices that a company in that position should be able to charge its customers. The House will note the belief of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) in letting the market rip, especially in a period of shortage or crisis.
      Mr. Portillo indicated assent.
      Mr. Rowlands: We shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's nod of assent and explain nationally that that is the position of Government Back Benchers, and I think that we are entitled to know whether the Government accept that unadulterated view of the market. Certain differences have emerged between the hon. Gentleman's position and that of the Government on certain aspects of the Bill. It will be interesting to know whether the Minister agrees with his hon. Friend.
      We ought to know whether, in return for a general assurance of the kind suggested in the letter, the Government have offered the major oil companies a free-for-all in prices, forswearing any intervention on price increases during a period of oil shortage. I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate will at least support me in saying that, in return for these assurances, we should have some knowledge of what is being suggested, and that there will not be a price disclaimer of the kind that was apparently in the BP-Government letter of November 1983.
      These are two very important aspects of the so-called informal supply assurances if they are repeated in the other assurances that the Minister has in relation to supply and in relation to a disclaimer of any form of price control, moderation or restraint in times of oil shortage. Is that the combination about which the Minister spoke when he told the House of his front-line defences to ensure the security of our oil supplies?
      Towards the end of the letter, I read:
      "This letter will cease to have effect upon the expiry of the royalty agreement."
      Will the Minister explain that a little more? If it is assured that this is the letter of assurance between BP and the Government, will the Minister say what that sentence means? If the royalty agreement between BP and the Secretary of State includes the right of the company to the automatic sale-back of all royalty oil, is that a part of BP's royalty agreement with the Secretary of State? If it is one of the conditions of the security of suppy assurance and it lapses when the royalty agreement lapses, how does that leave the assurance given to the House by the Minister that the new agency will be entitled to manage and trade every barrel of oil? Does BP's royalty agreement with the Secretary of State give the company the right to the automatic sale-back of royalty oil, and is the assurance made subject to this agreement?

      83
      On more than one occasion when we have discussed these issues the Minister has said that the agency will have a free and unfettered right to decide whether to manage and trade in royalty oil as opposed to giving an automatic sale-back provision to the major oil companies. Again, the House has a right to know about these so-called informal assurances.
      In the absence of any trading in participation oil by the new agency, because the agency will have only a limited trading role, these assurances play a much greater part than they would have if we had had an agency active in trading in any significant way in crude oil through its participation agreements.
      The new clause states that agreements relating to security of supply must be binding, contractual arrangements, not informal letters to civil servants from the managers of an oil company. In other words, they must be contractual agreements having the force of law. While it would be question of negotiations between companies and the Government, the new clause states that security of supply agreement must be specific rather than general. An agreement in the terms of the letter which I have quoted from the Financial Times would not do. That is why the new clause says in subsection (2)(a) that a company
      "shall continue to supply United Kingdom customers with crude oil and petroleum products with at least the quantities supplied over the previous year or contracted to supply over the coming year, and will increase the supply where possible and will use its transportation and distribution system for this purpose".
      That would be more specific than the waffly words contained in the BP letter. It goes on to place an onus on oil companies to promote and, where possible, increase supplies to the United Kingdom.
      Such obligations on oil companies are not unreasonable, because those companies have major interests in our North sea fields. It would be incomprehensible to the general public if those companies did not respond in the most positive way on behalf of United Kingdom customers at times of shortage. We are not adamant about the wording of the new clause. If the Minister accepted the principle involved, we should be willing to accept an alternative form of words.
      The new clause adds in subsection (2)(b) that there should not be a free-for-all in the way that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate described, whereby the oil companies would be able to exercise their power over the market and, in times of shortage, rip off the United Kingdom customer. To avoid that situation, we say:
      "The Company will make supplies at the prices ruling at the time of request (or as otherwise determined by law and regulations".
      No form of words should restrain the Government from being able to intervene, by law or regulations, on prices during a period of shortage.
      The new clause would place proper responsibility on oil companies to endeavour to improve the nation's oil supply position in a period of crisis or shortage. Such a responsibility should be on companies because, as I say, the public would find it incomprehensible should the United Kingdom not be in a better position at a time of oil shortage than are other countries that do not have oil supplies off their shores.
      Not only will the United Kingdom be in the oil production business for years to come—the oil will decline eventually; we shall discuss that on later
      84
      amendments—but we still do have a large refining capacity. The public would not understand if the nation, producing more than 2 million barrels a day, did not ensure that major oil companies made a special effort to see that we had adequate supplies during a period of shortage.
      Let us not forget that BP, Shell and the other major companies have had their way, as reflected by the Bill. I say that because their thinly disguised desire to have BNOC abolished—to remove BNOC as a major oil trader—is conceded to them in the Bill. Therefore, we are entitled to demand more from those companies by way of security of supply agreements than the untried, untested, waffly, informal assurances at which the Minister is clutching and on which he relied when replying to points made by hon. Members in Committee.
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) sometimes worries me. Although some clear lessons are to be learned from the last 10 years, he does not appear to want to learn them. One is that, between 1974 and 1979, Britain and other western countries responded to the 1974 oil crisis by attempting to restrain oil prices. The result was that we had high inflation, we continued to be heavily dependent on oil and we went through a period of world recession.
      In 1979, Britain again tried to restrain the prices of oil products. The result was that in Britain there was a shortage of those products, with queues at petrol stations, whereas other European countries which did not operate restraint had plentiful supplies of petrol—and we were a producer of oil, while those other countries were not.
      Since 1979, countries have by and large responded to the second oil shock in a completely different way. They have not attempted to restrain oil prices. Hence, since 1979 our dependence on oil has decreased. We have shown greater efficiency in the use of energy, with the result that in the intervening years we have had falling inflation and enjoyed a period of substantial growth. Today, there is a substantial oil surplus throughout the world, and that is attributable to the fact that countries are less dependent on oil. Even the price of oil has fallen considerably because we have not made the error of trying to restrain prices.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney wishes to lead us back to the bad old days when we tried to put the lid on prices and when, ironically, we suffered from precisely what we thought we were avoiding—inflation in general and high oil prices.
      Mr. Bruce Millan: I shall be brief and will not, therefore, answer the points that were made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), except to comment that I do not accept his account of what occurred either from 1974 to 1979 or for the period since 1979.
      I support the new clause, which was moved comprehensively by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). The security of supplies was the major point raised on Second Reading, when the Minister's answers were highly unsatisfactory. Nothing that has happened since then, in Committee and elsewhere, has persuaded me to change my view.
      I will not go over the whole question of security of supplies and what might happen when the agreements under the International Energy Agency and Common

      85
      Market are activated or what might happen on the activation of participation agreements. That is to be done with such a period of notice that, in terms of meeting a crisis—whether the crisis is beyond or below the trigger point of 7 per cent.—the whole process of reactivating participation agreements is of no relevance.
      On Second Reading the Minister described the informal assurances given to the Government by the oil companies. Therefore, he must be embarrassed that the details of at least one of the informal assurances appeared in the Financial Times this morning. On Second Reading he said that he could not tell us any more than he had about the arrangements—and that was precious little—because the details were confidential. They were not sufficiently confidential to prevent them from appearing in today's Financial Times. I do not know how that happened, but I am delighted that it did. At least we now have information about those informal assurances.
      8 pm
      We are entitled to answers to a number of questions about the report in the Financial Times. Is it accurate? Does it give an accurate account of the letter from BP dated November 1983? As 20 months have passed, is that letter still operative? Is it written in similar terms to letters from other oil companies, or is it a one-off letter? If there are other letters—we must assume that there are, and that they are the substance of the informal assurances received by the Government—are they similar to the letter from BP?
      I assume that those letters are not legally binding—they could not be informal if they were. On Second Reading and in Committee the Minister said that there were informal assurances. We are entitled to know how far those assurances are binding in the event of a crisis. Why should there not be legally binding agreements for the oil companies, given the circumstances of our North sea oil production? Why should we rely on informal assurances? If the companies are willing to give informal assurances, they can have no objection to having provisions written into legislation.
      I shall listen carefully to the Minister's answers to those questions. However, unless there is a legally binding agreement the protection of our oil supplies will be deficient and defective. We must have legislation to deal with that, which is why we have tabled the new clause.
      I fully support the new clause, including subsection 2(b) on prices. It is an important part of the new clause. However, if the Government said they were interested in security of supply but that it was not realistic to write a price ruling into legislation that would be fair enough. We could draft another new clause to accommodate that. What is essential is that there should be security of supply and that the Government have legally effective powers to ensure that in times of crisis. Indeed, the ordinary member of the public would find it incomprehensible that, despite our excessive production in the North sea, over our national needs, there should be a shortage in a time of crisis and no binding agreement to ensure security of supply. That would be indefensible.
      As BNOC is to be abolished, something must be written into legislation to protect our supplies, and the new clause seeks to do that. If the drafting is not quite right, and if there was an objection to the provision on prices—although I would not necessarily accept the validity of that
      86
      objection—it would be possible to write something into the legislation in another place to ensure security of supplies. I strongly support the new clause.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The House will appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was very much involved in the Committee stage of the Bill and would have been present today had it not been for circumstances of which the House is aware—that his wife gave birth to a daughter last week. She came out of hospital today and my hon. Friend is properly with her, learning how to change his first nappy. I hope that the House will accept me as a substitute.
      I am concerned about the implications of the new clause. The Opposition are understandably concerned about security of supply and the lack of legal force within the existing arrangements. However, the clause attempts to lay down specific circumstances for an unforeseen crisis, yet what will be required cannot be predetermined to the extent envisaged by the new clause. If a crisis involved the stoppage of the flow of oil in the world market, we should wish to retain the oil that we export for ourselves. We could deal with that by producing emergency legislation—something with which the House is perfectly capable of dealing in a spirit of all-party co-operation. That would be a more appropriate way to deal with the problem.
      Why is it that the United Kingdom, which accounts for about 1·6 per cent. of the world's oil reserves, accounts for 4·5 per cent. of the world's production? What are the implications of that for the future security of supplies? We are producing oil at a rapid rate and selling it abroad. By definition, the oil sold and consumed now will not be available in future. We should concern ourselves with that aspect.
      There is a natural instinct in the Labour party for tight regimentation in this matter. The hon. Member for Enfield. Southgate (Mr. Portillo) put the opposing view, which suggested too much trust in the force of the market to resolve the problem. However, to try to determine something in advance and introduce tight regulation over something that we cannot fully foresee is neither necessary nor likely to be workable.
      Subsection 2(a) states:
      "the company with production from the United Kingdom continental shelf shall continue to supply United Kingdom customers with crude oil and petroleum products with at least the quantities supplied over the previous year."
      Some customers might not want or be able to deal with that quantity for internal reasons. The criterion is rigid in the extreme.
      Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that the words do not debar the customer from foregoing a supply. Most of the assurances which the Minister is trying to obtain are for times when shortage occurs, but before a crisis. If a customer does not want the oil, the clause does not mean that he must take it.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for that clarification, but the clause anticipates circumstances which cannot be anticipated. The one merit in the clause is the recognition that securing crude oil is not a requirement. To the extent that the clause addresses itself to that specific, it is an improvement. It recognises that crude oil being available is no darned good without the facilities to process it. In terms of security, the new clause is an improvement on

      87
      previous agreements and participation agreements which Labour Governments wrote into legislation. I am pleased that we are learning.
      To be frank, I think that the new clause is proposed because of an understandable resentment about what the Government have done to the British National Oil Corporation. Once the company had been split, the only logical solution was to do what the Government are doing. We might not have agreed, but the Labour party is resisting the solution for sentimental rather than rational reasons. My colleagues and I will not support the new clause.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: An hon. Member can seek leave of the House to speak twice at this stage in proceedings, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say. I was not on the Committee considering the Bill, for reasons of which my colleagues are aware. I have sat on a number of other Bills on the same subject. When Lord Carrington was Secretary of State for Defence in the Government headed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), he favoured the British National Oil Corporation. That was because he realised from his ministerial experience that it would be impossible to safeguard supplies without some such instrument. That was his view at the time and I do not know whether he has recanted. I think not.
      We need to know whether the letter of intent is sufficient. I have two questions to ask about the Financial Times article. First, is it satisfactory that a letter from Mr. David Simon, the head of BP's refining and marketing division, to an Under-Secretary in the Department should give such assurances? Surely such assurances should be given at least by the chairman of the company to the Secretary of State. I am not a great one for protocol but that seems an odd way of proceeding.
      Secondly, the article states:
      "BP makes the above affirmation subject to there being no further governmental constraints on its ability to raise prices as a necessary means of recovering costs."
      What exactly is the nature of the quid pro quo?
      I have kept my comments short because, after the Minister has replied, some of us might want to ask further questions.
      8.15 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): We have debated this subject on Second Reading and in Committee. I have always acknowledged that the subject causes concern. Security of supply is important to the Government, to the House and to the country. In the changes that we made to BNOC and its functions, and in the changes made when Britoil was formed and in abolishing BNOC security of supply has loomed large. That is why I devoted a large part of my Second Reading speech to that aspect and why we debated certain aspects of participation fully in Committee.
      We have made changes because circumstances have changed. The situation is not the same as it was in the early 1970s, either in relation to the oil market or to the structure of the oil industry. The Bill is a reflection of the changes. What might have been appropriate 10 years ago is not necessarily appropriate today.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the Financial Times article. I
      88
      read the article with interest. The article must stand or fall on what it says. The arrangements between the Government and oil companies are confidential and I shall not breach that confidentiality. It is not my place to breach such confidentiality and I do not intend to do so. That would be wrong.
      Whatever the source of the article, the information did not come from me. I shall not take any part in breaching confidentiality that would have an effect on that company and on other companies with which agreements have been made.
      Mr. Millan: What will the effects be on the other companies and on BP? Everybody has read the article and the information is no longer confidential.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The matter is straightforward. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, having held a ministerial position, should consider the possibility of discussing confidential matters. If I were to discuss such matters freely in the House and elsewhere, the parties to the agreement would have little confidence in Ministers fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: I understand the Minister's difficulty in regard to confidentiality—obviously he does not want to comment in detail on such matters—but he must accept that the terms of the report in the Financial Times give us greater cause for misgiving about the secret undertakings. Will the Minister speak in defence of his arrangement, particularly in the light of his charge that it goes less far than we thought when he told us that the assurances were available?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am certainly prepared to comment on some of the general aspects, but I said that I was not prepared to comment on the specific details of the individual agreements with individual companies. For the reasons that I have stated clearly, I am not prepared to do that.
      The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) asked about the form of the assurances. They vary from company to company, and there are no two companies in exactly the same circumstances, so there is no standard form of agreement for all oil companies.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked about the binding nature of the agreements. He more or less answered his question. Of course they are not legally binding. In 1982, when the matter of the agreements was first made public, it was made clear that the agreements are informal. They are not legally binding, and I have never claimed that they are. Equally, given the relationship that exists over a series of matters between Government and the oil companies, I see no reason and the Government see no reason for believing that in practice those agreements would not be honoured by both parties to them.
      I should like to deal a little later with the matter of prices, because it is a fundamental part of the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about royalties. He would be correct if what is reported in the article to which he referred could be affected by the new arrangements being made as a result of the legislation. I shall turn in a moment to the relevant contribution of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Circumstances change and, as circumstances change, so may agreements with the oil companies change. If, as a result of the passing of the Bill, there need to be any

      89
      changes in the agreements with the oil companies, I shall discuss them with the oil companies. We are dealing with a changing situation. The passage of the Bill will create new circumstances. I assure the House that I shall be flexible and reactive to whatever changes arise as a result of the Bill.
      Mr. Rowlands: In reading the terms, it appears to be a condition of giving the assurance that the royalty agreement with BP is signed. As I understand the historic position of royalty agreements between BP and the Government, they are for the automatic sale-back of royalty oil. The Minister says now that, in the light of the assurances he has given us, the agency will not be bound by any automatic sale-back arrangements. Will the royalty agreements require revision, and will the assurance fall if the BP does not get its way in the royalty agreement with the Secretary of State?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I think that I have made my point quite clear. If changes are necessary, or if agreements are affected as a consequence of the passage of the Bill, obviously each agreement will have to be looked at individually, because there are different circumstances in different agreements. I give the House the assurance that I shall look at those agreements to make sure that they are no less effective, following the passage of the Bill, than they are at present.
      Mr. Millan: How can the Minister say that, if they are informal agreements and not legally binding? What happens if an oil company refuses to enter into an agreement? Presumably oil companies are free to do that.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is significant that no company has refused to do so. I shall deal shortly with the principle of the matter and with the reason for having informal agreements of the kind that we have, rather than having them in a more legal form, as suggested by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and his hon. Friends. It is a fundamental question that we debated to some extent in Committee and are debating again this evening.
      Mr. Rowlands: The Minister is always courteous in dealing with interventions. That has been characteristic of the way in which we have conducted our proceedings throughout the Bill. Therefore, I am sure that he will not mind if I intervene again.
      The Minister gave an assurance to this House and to the Committee that the new agency will not be bound to give the right of automatic sale-back of oil to any major oil company. It appears from the terms of the assurance that it is tied into a royalty agreement which gives BP the right to an automatic sale-back. Which assurance should we take?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I can only repeat what I have said. If there are changes as a result of the legislation, any changes in the agreements will have to be negotiated with those who are parties to them. That has been the character of participation. For example, where it has been BNOC's responsibility, or in relation to other contracts which BNOC has with a non-participation agreement, where on the specific agreement—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He has referred to a report in a newspaper and asked what would arise in the circumstances mentioned there. I cannot go further than I have already. If circumstances arise which affect
      90
      agreements, or if any change occurs in relation to a royalty undertaking which has been given, that has to be negotiated with the company concerned.
      I do not recommend to the House that there should be a legally binding agreement of the kind suggested in the amendment. The agreement in regard to supply of product and security arrangements is between the government and the oil companies, and not between BNOC and the oil companies. The hon. Gentleman is breaking completely new ground, not only on the formality of the agreement but in regard to the making of an agreement between the agency and the oil company.
      Where there is an agreement on security of supply, the Government are the proper custodian of one side of that agreement with the oil company, rather than, as in the past, through BNOC, or in the future through the agency. I shall refer in a moment to why we believe in working on a voluntary basis. It is much more appropriate, in regard to the range and degree of relationship between the Government and the agency, that the responsibility for the agreements on security of supply, whether legally binding or informal, should rest with the Government rather than shifting to the agency.
      From a practical aspect, an informal agreement is preferable to a formal one. The hon. Member for Gordon gave the reasons in his speech. All the experience of crises over the past 10 or 15 years shows that it is impossible to predict with any accuracy how a shortage might develop and what our priority needs will be in time of shortage. Therefore, we must have as much flexibility as possible in our understanding with our refiners, so that we ensure that they do everything to supply their customers in the best way possible. It is impossible to write down in a legal form, in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Methyr Tydfil and Rhymney, the kind of flexibility that is necessary if we are to react properly in a crisis.
      8.30 pm
      The new clause is a much more rigid approach. Although at first glance it has certain attractions, there could be considerable difficulties if we sought to put it into practice. The provisions might be out of step with the commercial facts of production and distribution. The new clause states:
      "the United Kingdom continental shelf shall continue to supply United Kingdom customers … with at least the quantities supplied over the previous year".
      How could this apply to a licensee with an interest in only one producing field, which had passed its producing peak? Who are the customers of a petrol station? How does one establish the quantities supplied over the previous year? Would there be an obligation to supply someone who had recently changed to another supplier?
      Once one follows this rigid approach, attractive though it may seem in some respects, it becomes divorced from the real practice of commerce. It assumes a simpler basis of trading in oil and oil products than is the case in the real world. The hon Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) entertained the Committee for a considerable period by following the chain of a cargo of oil from the time it was produced at the wellhead until it passed through the terminal and was loaded. He regaled us with stories of cargoes being traded 10 or 20 times. That does not apply to every cargo. One simply cannot formalise the practice in this new clause. One cannot try to solidify the pattern of trading after the agreement has been triggered. Entering into such contractual provisions—this is my main

      91
      opposition to the new clause—would entail a considerable loss of flexibility. Above all else, we need flexibility.
      The new clause refers to prices and to the oil that may be delivered under the security of supply agreement. It would be difficult for any United Kingdom continental shelf producer to agree to a pricing condition other than one that allowed him to receive the prevailing market price at the time of delivery. Any agreement would have to be made on that basis. Indeed, that principle was followed by the last Labour Government, when they introduced participation agreements on the basis that BNOC's transactions should be at no gain and no loss to the corporation or to producers. It is inappropriate to write into the new clause or into any informal or formal agreement any conditions on prices, other than that they should reflect market conditions.
      Mr. Rowlands: That is not what the BP letter says. BP's point is very different. It tries to bind Governments not to apply any legal or Government constraint. It makes it a condition of the assurance that Governments will never try to constrain or moderate prices. That proposition is very different from agreeing to a price of the type laid down in participation agreements.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Labour Government introduced participation agreements on the basis that the transactions should be at no gain and no loss. Obviously, this will reflect market conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) pointed out that, when the Labour Government endeavoured to use their powers with respect to price constraints, supplies subsequently dried up. Because the United Kingdom market cannot be isolated from the world market, eventually there were upward prices in line with market conditions. The only effect of Government action in intervening was to cause a delay, which threatened supplies. I hope that my slightly more pragmatic approach, in comparison with that of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, in the light of the Labour Government's experience, shows what can happen. The Labour Government did not have a single supply assurance from a United Kingdom refiner. They relied on participation agreements. When the crisis came, it had no effect on the users of oil products and we suffered from shortages.
      Because it is better to act informally rather than formally in giving flexibility and, because of our experience during previous crises, I believe that my approach is better than that of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, and I therefore ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Dalyell rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member has spoken once in the debate. Does he have the leave of the House to speak again?
      Hon. Members: Yes.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member may proceed.
      Mr. Dalyell: May I repeat the question that was put first by me, secondly by my hon. Friend the Member for
      92
      Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and thirdly by me again. It is no good simply taking refuge in the confidences in the Financial Times article, which states:
      "BP makes the above affirmation subject further to there being no legal or governmental constraint on its ability to raise prices as a necessary means of recovering costs."
      What is the quid pro quo?
      Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister of State answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall put the point simply, as I did earlier. I am not prepared to comment on the particular aspects of agreements with companies as reported in the newspapers. I have pointed out the much broader question of principle—that trying to write in conditions on prices, as the new clause does, has proved in practice to be totally ineffective, especially in the experience of the Labour Government whom the hon. Member for Linlithgow supported.
      Mr. Rowlands: We have suffered quite a lot from the Minister's complacency, which he has shown yet again in those remarks. It provides cold comfort to customers or members of the public to realise that when the Minister uses the words "informal" or "flexible", it is ministerial double-think and double-talk, allowing oil companies to get away with wishy-washy assurances of the type that the right hon. Gentleman is clutching—which, when the crunch comes, are scarcely worth the paper on which they are printed. For that reason, I ask my colleagues to join me in the Division Lobby in supporting the new clause, which gives proper and meaningful assurances to customers and to the public in times of oil shortage.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 187.

      Division No. 273]

      [8.39 pm

      AYES

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Foster, Derek

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      George, Bruce

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Benn, Tony

      Golding, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hardy, Peter

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Home Robertson, John

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hoyle, Douglas

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

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Buchan, Norman

      John, Brynmor

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lamond, James

      Clay, Robert

      Leighton, Ronald

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Corbett, Robin

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Cowans, Harry

      McGuire, Michael

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dalyell, Tam

      McKelvey, William

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      McNamara, Kevin

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

      McTaggart, Robert

      Deakins, Eric

      McWilliam, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Madden, Max

      Dixon, Donald

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Maxton, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Michie, William

      Eadie, Alex

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Ewing, Harry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Fatchett, Derek

      Parry, Robert

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Patchett, Terry

      Fisher, Mark

      Pike, Peter

      Flannery, Martin

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      93

      Prescott, John

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Randall, Stuart

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Redmond, M.

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Robertson, George

      Tinn, James

      Rogers, Allan

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wareing, Robert

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Wilson, Gordon

      Skinner, Dennis

      Snape, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hill, James

      Ancram, Michael

      Hind, Kenneth

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Holt, Richard

      Bendall, Vivian

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Benyon, William

      Howells, Geraint

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Blackburn, John

      Kennedy, Charles

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Knowles, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Lang, Ian

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Lawler, Geoffrey

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

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Bright, Graham

      Lightbown, David

      Brinton, Tim

      Lilley, Peter

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Livsey, Richard

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Browne, John

      Lord, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Maclean, David John

      Budgen, Nick

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Burt, Alistair

      Madel, David

      Butcher, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Butterfill, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Mates, Michael

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

      Mather, Carol

      Carttiss, Michael

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Chapman, Sydney

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Merchant, Piers

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Moate, Roger

      Colvin, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Coombs, Simon

      Moore, John

      Cope, John

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Corrie, John

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Couchman, James

      Murphy, Christopher

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Neale, Gerrard

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Needham, Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Dover, Den

      Neubert, Michael

      du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Newton, Tony

      Dunn, Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Durant, Tony

      Normanton, Tom

      Dykes, Hugh

      Norris, Steven

      Eggar, Tim

      Osborn, Sir John

      Evennett, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Favell, Anthony

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Penhaligon, David

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Pollock, Alexander

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Porter, Barry

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Portillo, Michael

      Gregory, Conal

      Powley, John

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Raffan, Keith

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Henderson, Barry

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      94

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Tracey, Richard

      Rowe, Andrew

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ryder, Richard

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Viggers, Peter

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Waddington, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wainwright, R.

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walden, George

      Sims, Roger

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waller, Gary

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Ward, John

      Speller, Tony

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Spencer, Derek

      Warren, Kenneth

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Stern, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Woodcock, Michael

      Sumberg, David

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Yeo, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. John Major.

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 2

      GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF AGENCY
      Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
      `(1A) In managing on behalf of the Crown pipelines and storage installations the Agency shall prepare a plan to design and construct an onshore crude oil pipeline system to complement the existing system and shall enter into agreements on behalf of the Crown to make the system available to licensees with production from onshore fields on a common carrier basis at a commercial tariff and the system shall include better rail sidings, tank farms and necessary links with offshore producing facilities.'.
      This amendment provides for the design and construction of onshore crude pipeline systems, which will complement existing systems and allow the making of agreements with licensees to use the pipelines as common carriers. As the amendment recognises, this would involve rail sidings, tank farms and links with offshore production facilities. It is a sensible amendment; the Minister will recall that it is similar to one that we debated in Committee, although it is not identical. It has more merit than the amendment that we debated in Committee, and the Minister will have had a little more time to consider the wisdom of our proposals.
      The amendment is sensible, because it would make a helpful contribution to the nation's transport facilities. The Minister said in Committee that, the building of a pipeline can cause some difficulty, and that the several pipelines that had been built in his constituency had caused him concern as a representative of the local people. However, if he has reflected on the matter since Committee, he will have discovered that, after it has been completed, a pipeline causes much less concern than would many vehicles pounding along the roads in his constituency, to the distress of those who might momentarily have had only a little anxiety about the construction of a pipeline.
      If the Minister seeks to maintain the Government's policy of extracting oil as fast as, possible from onshore as

      95
      well as offshore fields, he will present serious problems to those who live in the areas affected. On balance, the vast majority of residents in areas where onshore oil has been discovered would wish to swap the prospect of vehicles pounding along their roads for the sensible and peaceful operation of a new pipeline.
      I am sorry that the Government have not been more sensitive about such matters. The Minister was hasty in his rejection of our amendment in Committee, and I wish to put this point to him. My constituency is in an area where onshore exploration is proceeding. The Minister will share my view that onshore exploration in such areas is likely to be fruitful. As a Member for one of the large parts of England where oil is likely to be discovered, I would prefer it to be moved by pipeline than on our inadequate roads.
      A short time ago, I told another Minister in the Department that I would strongly object to any opencast development in my area, and that I would object even more strongly to attempts to move on the roads in my constituency the material displaced or the coal extracted. Greedy eyes are already considering one site where the roads simply could not tolerate the additional traffic that would be required. If there is opencast development, the material should be moved by rail or by canal, not by road. The same argument applies in the case of the amendment. There is no reason why the roads should be clogged by vehicles moving material extracted from offshore oilfields when we have readily available the silent, efficient and effective pipeline system.
      If the Government advise the Oil and Pipelines Agency that it should go ahead with extensions to the pipeline system, this could lead to substantial industrial orders and to many jobs. I hope that that point has not escaped the Minister's attention. The amendment does not state, although perhaps it should have done, that the jobs created would be largely within British industry. We recognise that, at last, the Government have begun to realise the enormity of the unemployment problem in many industrial areas, and such orders would be welcome and timely. There would be substantial benefits in the transportation of the product and, in the long run, for the environment, and the provision of jobs through orders to the steel and engineering industries, at a time when such jobs are needed desperately.
      Since, this year, the Government will receive £12,000 million in direct revenues from our oil activities, the Opposition believe that some of that money could be invested in Britain. We would commend such valuable investment. The Government tend to boast that the oil revenues have allowed us to buy substantial assets abroad. Earlier this year, after calculating that we had received £50,000 million in direct revenues from offshore oil, I asked the Prime Minister during Question Time what benefit we had obtained from it. The Prime Minister's response was that we had enormously increased our overseas portfolio. When she was asked a similar question the other day, her answer had shifted a little. It should shift much more, and one way to shift it would be to devote some of the revenues to establishing a pipelines system that could benefit Britain for a long time.
      In Committee, the Minister boasted of how much money had been invested in our existing pipelines. Although it is not as colossal a figure as the investment in
      96
      some of the projects which the House debates from time to time, the sums involved are substantial. In 1980–81, we invested £2·47 million; in 1981–82, it was £1·87 million; in 1982–83, it was £2·6 million; in 1983–84, it was £3·65 million; and in the last full financial year, the figure was £4·32 million. Those substantial sums would provide more benefit if our existing pipelines were complemented by links to the onshore fields. We do not rule out additional links, which are entirely justified, to ensure that the onshore and offshore fields are complementary.
      The Minister must recognise the merit of our proposal. It would provide jobs and a cleaner and healthier environment, and it would please the Select Committee. If the Minister recognises the merit of the consideration of the Select Committee, he will realise that the Select Committee appears to be recommending that there should be improved storage facility and investment, and the amendment would certainly fit well with the Select Committee's relatively recent recommendation.
      I hope that the Minister will not dismiss as unimportant our concern about unemployment, the environment and transport. He may feel assured that the Government's docile and substantial majority in Parliament will allow him to continue to reject our logical and intelligent pleas with impunity, but I rather think that in another place there will be concern for the environment and employment which adds grace to that establishment, but which, if ignored in this House, is particularly regrettable since we are supposed to be the democratically sensitive establishment. We are perhaps relieved of the problem and responsibility of taking the longer and more relaxed view, which is often the characteristic of their Lordships. Here we are entitled to discuss realities. The reality of the situation is that the sheer common sense of the amendment deserves consideration.
      9 pm
      It may be that the Government Whips have persuaded their hon. Friends to stay away in order that they shall not be exposed to the sanity of our suggestion. The Minister smiles enigmatically, as is his wont, but I should not be surprised if that were the case. I trust that the shock which we had in Committee when the Minister rejected our argument will not be repeated tonight. The Minister is aware that the private sector recognises merit in the pipeline system and in its extension.
      He recognised in Committee, and I hope that he will again tonight, the wisdom of the extension of the link which Mobil is now establishing to the terminal at Wymondham in Norfolk. Mobil was serving Mobil's interests, but in fact it was serving British interests as well because it is much more sensible to invest in this way to make the movement of oil efficient without causing social and economic disadvantage. Now that the Minister has had a few weeks for reflection, I hope that he will realise that the Wymondham development by Mobil is one which should be extensively repeated. We would certainly wish this to be so. In that regard, I remind the Minister that we put this proposal forward as a demonstration not only of our belief in sane arrangements in transport and industry but because we believe that there is a substantial place for co-operation in the economy between the public and private sectors. The example of the Mobil development in Norfolk should be repeated. I think that we can justly

      97
      claim that our approach is entirely undogmatic and that, if there is dogma in these matters, it rests firmly wholly on the Government's shoulders.
      On this occasion I hope that the Minister, perhaps in preparation for consideration of the Bill in their Lordships' House, will recognise the powerful arguments in support of our amendments and, for a change, will consider accepting them.
      Mr. Bruce: I am not sure what the Minister is going to make of this proposal. I yield to nobody in my willingness to resist the Government's economic policy and to criticise many aspects of their oil and gas development policy. I started out on my political career by standing against the Minister, and I like to think that I have done a little better since then.
      I do not think that, in the course of trying to be constructively critical of the Government's performance, I can be expected to support what seems to me a barmy idea. I wonder what kind of impetus is coming from within the oil and gas industry to give rise to this kind of proposal. I certainly agree that we want to look for co-ordination of development, and I would welcome proposals to extend that. However, I am puzzled as to how one can integrate the onshore industry with the offshore industry, which is completely different in geography, scale and location; and where the pipeline is going to or from is a mystery to me.
      Mr. Hardy: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's difficulties. He is standing in for his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) at short notice. If he had prepared for the debate, he would have been able to obtain from his hon. Friend the map of the pipeline system. On it, as on the various public documents available, he would have seen where the offshore fields are or are likely to be. He would have noticed that the location of the offshore fields in the area of Wessex is not very far from existing pipelines—perhaps those which have facilities at Hamble. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in Committee, his hon. Friend voted alternately with us and with the Government? My impression is that, having supported the Government on new clause 1, he will support us on amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am capable of making up my own mind about the merits of the amendment. I gave way in the hope that he might answer my question. Where is the driving force in the industry about the benefit that it would get from the integrated development that the amendment appears to propose? I still wonder whether it is being suggested that we should pipe oil from Wytch farm to Hound point or even to Sullom Voe.
      Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman does know where the pipeline is.
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is pushing his luck suggesting that an hon. Member from the Aberdeen area who has been connected with the oil industry does not know where the pipelines are. I am well aware of where the onshore pipelines are. It is sensible to co-ordinate development of new pipelines and to take account of our new requirements when giving annex B approval. However, it is extravagant to suggest that the agency must prepare a plan to design and construct an onshore crude oil pipeline system.
      British Gas and BP were interested in an integrated gas gathering system. Those of us who supported the system
      98
      were encouraged because plenty of people who knew a great deal about oil and gas development felt that the project was worth while. Movement came from within the industry rather than at the whim of a political party. The project did not go ahead, but it was always a sensible idea. The Government would not have considered it so closely if they had not recognised its considerable merits. However, I am not aware of any serious suggestion in the industry for an approach such as this.
      The Labour party must show that it is not determined to regulate the industry for purely bureaucratic reasons. It must also show that it recognises that people in gas and oil production are professionals with considerable experience and with whom they should work in partnership. I understand that, in spite of the bold words of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), the amendment will not be pursued to a Division. The Labour party would be wise not to press it.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not aware of any pressure in the industry for this type of pipeline. When considering annex B development plans, I consider the pipeline implications and the terminal implications. Proposals and decisions are commercial, but the structure must be thought out sensibly.
      The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has previously, and generously, acknowledged that I am deeply concerned about the employment potential of our oil industry. He has credited what I have tried to do since coming to this office to ensure that benefits are ploughed back in employment opportunities in the United Kingdom.
      Equally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that offshore fields, to which the amendment refers—I must emphasise that—involve environmental factors. That was one of the major reasons for introducing a new licensing procedure for onshore development and exploration in the past 12 months. No scheme will please everybody, but the new scheme has been generally welcomed by both oil and environmental interests seeking a better balance between the two. I am sensitive to those points.
      The amendment concerns crude oil from onshore fields, which, as the hon. Member for Wentworth said, can be transported in a number of ways, one of which is by pipeline. I hate to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman again, but I question the relevance of the amendment to the Bill. We must remember that the Government's pipeline system was originally constructed to supply military airfields owned by the Government with the materials essential for wartime use. Therefore, the Government did not have then, nor do they now, any strategic interest in crude oil pipelines. I could not see such a pipeline servicing Government-owned establishments, as I am not aware of any that are using crude oil.
      Therefore, decisions on how oil is disposed of, or transported from, a particular onshore development are the responsibility, with proper respect for planning and environmental considerations, of those who are concerned with the commercial development of the particular oil accumulation. If the licensees decide that the pipeline is appropriate, it would be for them to construct and operate it. I do not see any justification for involving the public sector, and in particular the Oil and Pipelines Agency, in owning or financing such pipelines.
      Those are fundamental objections, but there are some practical ones as well. I endeavour to be practical in

      99
      dealing with amendments, as I was in Committee. Amendment No. 1 refers to an onshore crude oil pipeline that is complementary to the existing Government pipelines and storage systems. However, as the existing system transports products and the one envisaged by the amendment would convey crude, it is difficult to see how the two could be regarded as complementary. However, if any part of the Government pipeline became redundant and if it appeared that it could be used by the licensee of an onshore oil production field and was appropriate for crude oil, I would expect the agency, as the managing agent of the existing system, to do what it could to facilitate such a change of use.
      Despite the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the amendment is not clear about where the pipelines should go once they have left the onshore fields. I imagine that the licensees would want to connect them to existing pipelines, to refineries or to port loading facilities. The amendment suggests that the pipelines should be linked with offshore producing fields. However, as the major onshore fields such as Wytch Farm and Humbly Grove, two of the bigger ones, are in the south of England and the major offshore fields are in the north of Scotland, it is difficult to see what purpose would be served by constructing such an extremely long pipeline.
      Mr. Hardy: The Minister of State's Department has produced an attractive document about British onshore reserves. It shows that the prospects for oil extraction in Britain cover not merely the Wessex area but a large part of the area on the western side of the Bristol channel. It is a pity that illustrations cannot be used in the Official Report, but this illustration shows that the prospects stretch right up into Lancashire on the western side of the Pennines and include a large part of Lincolnshire stretching right across to Northamptonshire and a considerable part of Yorkshire, stretching to Teeside. This means that the Teeside facilities for the oil industry could link in very well with the extraction of oil from the Yorkshire and Humberside region. We are taking a longer view of oil extraction than the hon. Member for Gordon.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman takes such a long-term view, but I hope that he realises that the map he is holding represents what we know on the basis of geological knowledge, not what we know on the basis of drilling. I am referring to the areas where we are producing onshore oil. Many people would like oil to be produced in commercial quantities in some of these other areas too, but where work has taken place the results have not been quite so optimistic as the hon. Gentleman is and as I should like to be. I have to be realistic and to look at these matters in a practical manner.
      For these reasons, I am anxious that the Government's pipelines system should be used as sensibly as possible. Again I pay tribute to the British National Oil Corporation for the way it managed the system. In recent years it has increased the commercial use of the pipelines system, but it has always borne in mind the fact that it has a fundamentally strategic use and that its full capacity has not been needed. The agency will, I am sure, encourage the use of the pipelines system for commercial purposes. To try to stretch a crude oil pipeline as opposed to a
      100
      product pipeline to one that services crude oil from onshore fields is not, attractive though in some respects is the hon. Gentleman's proposition, one that lies properly with the functions of the Government's pipelines system either as it has been in the past, as it was recently under BNOC or as it will be in the future under the agency. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Dalyell: I want again to ask for the leave of the House to put a question. I should like to hear what the Minister of State has to say in reply to it. I have to declare a strong constituency interest in the matter, not only because of the experience of Hound point, which was offshore, but because the whole pipe-laying exercise was so traumatic for some of my constituents and caused problems in particular for smallholders. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, the Minister knows about these problems. Furthermore, there are possibly oil deposits in the Bathgate area of Livingston.
      In a previous incarnation the Minister had experience of the Scottish Office. To what extent will these be strategic planning matters for Government Departments to what extent will they be left to commercial interests? This is a very important issue. I listened carefully to the Minister and if I have misunderstood him, I apologise. My impression is that these decisions will be made by commercial interests, and hang the rest of us. I hope that that is not true.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I can assure him that nobody is more sensitive than I about the laying of pipelines. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will bear me out when I say that within its small physical confines my constituency probably contains more pipelines than the constituency of any other hon. Member of Parliament. If, for the sixth time, certain landowners have a pipeline running through their land it can be a very traumatic experience. Both my Department and local authority departments are sensitive about this matter, and I take to heart the hon. Gentleman's point.
      All onshore oil exploration and production is subject to the licensing procedure of my Department. As I said earlier, those procedures have recently been totally reviewed and a new system introduced to provide better safeguards. That will be welcomed as an improvement on the situation which existed before. Looking at it from the industrial and economic point of view, ultimate control rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who grants the licences. The exercise of the licensing policy is discussed with my right hon. Friends in other interested Departments and we take a strategic view in relation to it. It is not just a narrow commercial view. The proposals and applications come from commercial interests, but the system is subject to licensing and licensing control, and the performance of the licences is monitored.
      Mr. Dalyell: The Minister will forgive me for being parochial, but for the Livingston-Bathgate situation may we have an undertaking that at an early stage the two hon. Members concerned—my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and I, and indeed the regional council and the district council—will be taken into the confidence of those doing the strategic planning, because

      101
      last time round a great deal of hassle would have been saved if we had been consulted at an early stage, especially in relation to the compensation of some constituents?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said to other hon. Members who have an interest in exploration or production licences in their constituencies, I am very happy for them to come and discuss these matters. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to follow that up he may do so, should the appropriate stage arise. As the hon. Gentleman may know, just a few weeks ago I announced under the new procedures the first onshore licensing round. Applications have been invited and that round will close towards the end of September. From then on we shall he examining the applications, and thereafter we shall be making an announcement about the awards. If, when the awards are announced, the hon. Gentleman finds that his constituency or that of his hon. Friend is affected, I shall be happy to meet and discuss with him any aspect he wishes to discuss.
      Mr. Dalyell: Thank you very much.
      Mr. Hardy: We shall not press this matter to the vote. Before the withdrawal of the amendment, could I say to the Minister that, as a result of his constituency experience, there may well be a stronger case for integration in the development of pipelines than seems to have been the case in his own area? I recently saw a pipeline, not for oil, built through my constituency and it was obvious that we manage things very much better in north Yorkshire than they are managed in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency in Scotland.
      One of our major concerns was the position of the smaller companies in the round of licensing to which the Minister has referred. Over the months, if it becomes obvious that, in the national interest or in the interest of the small independents, pipeline facilities should be provided, I hope that the Minister will not, out of a sense of dogma, prevent the Oil and Pipelines Agency from applying its ability and experience in the national interest. I hope that he will recognise that its experience is substantial and should be made available and not denied simply because the Minister has remarkably little faith, even in his own Department's publications, but a great deal of dogma.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF AGENCY
      Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 18 at end insert—
      '(1A) Agreements entered into under subsection (1) above shall include the provision that the Agency shall lift royalty oil in the relevant chargeable period or where it is unable to do so no later than the end of the following chargeable period.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 18 at end insert—
      `(1A) Agreements entered into under subsection (1) above shall include the provision that, at the request of the Agency, on behalf of the Crown and after consultation with the Secretary of State, the Operator shall reduce production in the field by—

      (a) the amount that would otherwise have been supplied to the Agency on behalf of the Crown as royalty oil; and

      (b) an equivalent amount of petroleum that would otherwise have been supplied to the licensees

      102
      such amounts to be left in the ground and the operator shall not produce such petroleum until requests to do so by the Agency, on behalf of the Crown and after agreement with the Secretary of State.'.
      Mr. Rowlands: Although the two amendments are being taken together, the only thing that they have in common is a reference to royalty oil. I divide my contribution into two parts and I hope that the Minister will do the same when he replies. The debate will be better if we do it in that way.
      Amendment No. 2 picks up a substantial issue which I raised in Committee and which does not arouse partisan feelings. I drew attention in Committee to the difficulties that the OPA may face in managing royalty-in-kind oil. Provisions governing the collection of royalty oil dictate that the agency must take all its entitlement within each six-month chargeable period. If it does not collect the oil within six months, it forfeits the right to collect, and royalty oil is paid subsequently in cash.
      Collecting royalty oil within the chargeable period was a problem even for BNOC. I understand that the lifting of royalty oil is a shambles. Irrespective of our views on other aspects of the Bill, we all wish the agency to be as efficient and effective as possible in managing and trading oil. The problem will arise for the OPA if, in any six-month period, the amount of royalty oil does not justify sending a tanker to collect it. The problem was less serious for BNOC, because it could aggregate royally oil, participation oil and commercial oil to make up a decent cargo. Therefore, in most cases, it was able to collect the royalty oil on behalf of the state.
      The OPA will not have the other sources of oil to make up a decent cargo. We tried to persuade the Minister of State to give the agency a more expansive role and allow it to enter agreements to purchase commercial oil, but the right hon. Gentleman turned his back on that. Therefore, the agency will face difficulties and the shambles involved in collecting royalty oil at present will get worse.
      Amendment No. 2 suggests that there should be a rollover period, in which royalty oil that was not collected in one six-month period could be rolled over into the next period and help to make up a decent cargo so that the oil could be delivered to the market efficiently. The amendment proposes a system which I gather is the practice in Norway. It offers a practical solution to what will become an increasingly difficult problem for the agency. How does the Minister think that the agency will be able to handle that problem?
      Amendment No. 4 raises a different issue connected with royalty oil. I touched on it briefly in Committee. Amendment No. 4 suggests that we should have the power to bank royalty oil. That is an option which should be available to the Government, especially if trends in the market make it commercially and nationally sensible. Here we could be looking at a different scenario from the one that we discussed earlier or the one that we may discuss on Third reading, when we could be facing oil shortages.
      9.30 pm
      In the coming months, we could see a dramatic fall, even a free fall, in crude oil prices. It is being talked about widely in oil circles, and the shambles that OPEC is in fuels the speculation that there could be a substantial if not a free fall in prices. If a substantial fall occurs, it will have conflicting impacts on our economy. Many aspects of a

      103
      substantial fall in price could help to develop our economy, but they will also raise genuine questions of oil production policy.
      In such a case, would it make much sense to drain as rapidly and as rapaciously as possible our largest, cheapest but declining oil supplies from the Ninian, the Brent and the Forties, or would it make more sense to leave the oil in the ground until a better price could be obtained? It might make honest, commercial common sense to bank a percentage of the oil, especially that in the most mature fields in the North sea. It might also serve as a modest form of depletion policy.
      Banking our royalty oil in the mature fields would have no consequence for the development of our new fields. It would have little or no major effect on jobs in the exploration for and development of new fields. Therefore, I am interested to know whether the Minister has any thoughts about banking royalty oil.
      Since our Committee stage, the issue of banking royalty oil has been raised. I read with interest in the Daily Telegraph of 1 July the report of an interview between Mr. Roland Gribben and Mr. Peter Holmes, the new chairman of Shell Transport and Trading. Mr. Holmes said:
      "Lower oil prices are bad news for Britain but if Britain could it should be doing something like banking royalty oil."
      We do not necessarily agree with his concept that lower oil prices are bad for Britain. We have heard conflicting views about the impact of lower, stable or higher oil prices on our economic and industrial prospects, but the issue of banking royalty oil will again be raised if we see a substantial fall in prices. Although I do not wholly subscribe to the view of the chairman of Shell Transport and Trading, there may be a case for the Government at least to have the option of banking royalty oil.
      If that decision is taken, there may also be a case for saying to the oil companies that if royalty oil is to be banked they, too, must bank oil barrel for barrel. In a period of dramatically falling oil prices, there might be a simple, common-sense, commercial reason for the Government to consider banking royalty oil and asking North sea operations to do the same barrel for barrel.
      That is the idea that we float in the amendment. The amendment also gives us the opportunity to ask what powers the Minister already has to bank royalty oil. Would it require new legislation to do it or would it simply be the subject of sensible, commercial negotiation and temporary arrangements between the oil companies and the Government?
      Given the speed with which oil markets change and trends in development occur, it might not be a bad idea for the Government to have the option which the amendment would provide and which, to borrow some words from the Minister, would be flexible, pragmatic and sensible.
      Mr. Bruce: I intervene briefly, if only in the interest of being even-handed and to let Labour Members know that I do not just have it in for them tonight. There is some merit in the amendment. It is flawed in its drafting, as the hon. Member for Methyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) acknowledged. He moved it as a constructive contribution to considering how we handle royalty oil in the most flexible way in the national interest.
      The amendment raises a wider issue, to which I referred earlier—the extent to which we are overproducing oil,
      104
      in the sense that the United Kingdom has 1·6 per cent. of the world's reserves and is producing 4·5 per cent. of the world's production. Do we have it wrong, or do others have it wrong?
      To the extent, therefore, that the amendment represents a sensible contribution in considering how we might be more flexible in the use of royalty oil, and perhaps help to modify production in a way that is acceptable—we are, after all, referring to the Government's oil—the Minister might consider whether what is proposed, or a variation of it, is worth exploring in terms of an extra option which the Government might wish to employ in future.
      Mr. Dalyell: We must be flexible about onshore production. In what was my constituency is the town of Bo'ness, which is a mining area containing a number of shafts where subsidence problems in recent years have proved extremely serious. Houses were built on ground which, because of coal production, has since proved to be unstable.
      So much for coal. Some people are concerned about what the extraction of onshore oil may mean in built-up areas, and at this stage I register a constituency concern, though I wish to broaden the consideration of an aspect of oil production.
      I heard recently, as did many of my hon. Friends, of worries that had been expressed about one of those great glories of medieval English architecture, Salisbury cathedral. I gather that the great spire of the cathedral is built on a base which, along with the chapter house, has a depth of only 4 ft. It is a marvellous engineering construction. In view of the proposal to extract oil in the Salisbury area, I am told that the friends of Salisbury cathedral believe that there could be sufficent destabilising of the surroundings to render the spire dangerous. I do not wish to exaggerate the point, and I put it no higher than that. Reports are available. Should the Department wish to inquire into the matter, it could undoubtedly obtain more facts.
      How flexible are the environmental arrangements if it is found that the extraction of oil would create environmental hazards to what we might call the built-in environment? I do not know whether tonight, in considering this amendment, is the right time to raise this issue. It is clear that a substantial and major problem has arisen and that thought will have to be given to it.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) acknowledged that the point he raised was not wholly relevant to the amendment, I appreciate its importance. Every aspect of the application for production with which I am concerned is subject to the full rigours of planning conditions, and at that stage the considerations that he mentioned would be taken into account. I will send him information which may help to describe the procedures that must be gone through and which, I hope, provide the necessary safeguards in such a situation.
      Mr. Dalyell: It might be found that the geological knowledge was incomplete. In any event, conditions can alter. What would the Government do if permission were given in good faith by all the parties concerned and it was later found that the geological conditions were such that the built-in environment was threatened?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Of course, planning permission can be given subject to certain conditions where special considerations might apply. I shall certainly give the hon. Gentleman more than an outline of the exact procedures involved. I hope that that will be of some reassurance to him, but, if not, he is welcome to come and discuss the general issues with me.
      The two amendments are important and interesting, and I do not fault them on any drafting ground. The intention behind them is quite clear. I wish first to deal with amendment No. 2 and then to move on to amendment No. 4, because they raise two separate points.
      As background to the matter, it is important to understand the Government's right to take royalty oil, which arises from the conditions of the model clauses under which licences are granted. Therefore, if we wish to change the manner or timing of the taking of royalty oil, it is necessary to amend the appropriate model clauses. It would not be possible to amend the contractual relationship between the Secretary of State and licensees by inserting provisions in an agreement between the Secretary of State and the agency, as the amendments seek to do.
      The agency will have no contractual or any other entitlement to lift royalty in kind. It will do so as the Secretary of State's agent. I mention that not in any way to knock down the principles behind the amendments, but because it is important to get that perspective right in relation to their practical application. We discussed the principles underlying amendment No. 2 in Committee on 18 June. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said that there could be problems with roll-over entitlements of royalty going from one chargeable period to another. However, he was wrong to say tonight that the whole of royalty oil is in a shambles—it is not. I acknowledge that there can be problems on roll-over, but not to the extent of disadvantage suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The problem has been with us for some time and BNOC has largely overcome it. I believe that the agency should also he able to overcome it.
      In practice, when BNOC has accrued a substantial portion of a cargo of royalty oil near the end of a chargeable period, it has been able to purchase oil from other licensees to make a whole cargo, which it has then been able to lift. There is no reason why part cargoes of royalty in kind should not continue to be aggregated with part cargoes of crude accruing to licensees in the field, either through the agency purchasing the latter—which is why we proposed that the agency should have powers to trade on its own account—or by selling the part cargoes of royalty in kind to the other licensees. There are practical ways in which the agency should be able to deal with that.
      It is important to get in perspective the scale of the issue that we are considering. If royalty-in-kind oil could not be aggregated with other oil to make complete cargoes, my Department has made estimates that indicate that royalty in kind oil not lifted would currently be less than 0·4 per cent. of United Kingdom continental shelf production, so the gross scale of the problem should not be all that great.
      However, I acknowledge that aggregation has given rise to problems in the past and could give rise to problems in future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if operational difficulties arise in aggregating part cargoes in the way that I have described, I shall consider the issue again when other changes in the model clauses—which are the
      106
      correct way to deal with this matter—are next considered. We have no intention that this should be a difficulty, nor do we want it to be a difficulty. There are practical ways around it.
      Amendment No. 4 is more fundamental and I cannot accept it. If we have to use the depletion power, the Secretary of State should have the right to use it, not the agency. If it were decided to impose cuts, the responsibility should rest with the Secretary of State.
      9.45 pm
      It might be helpful if I clarify the Government's depletion policy. The United Kingdom is not able to influence the world oil market through the manipulation of the volume that it produces. We are a medium-sized producer. We produce about 2·6 million barrels a day compared with the United States, which produces 10·5 million barrels, and the Soviet Union, which produces about 12·5 million barrels. We export about 1 million barrels a day net. Any reduction that we made would have little effect on the global oil market.
      Anyone who has studied OPEC members or other oil producers will know that any reduction that we made would almost certainly be taken up by others. Any move to cut production would result in clear losses. I am uncertain that we would benefit.
      I say that because of the practical and physical nature of our offshore production in the North sea and other areas on the continental shelf. Given the high risk and high cost nature of our production compared with most other offshore areas, and certainly with the big onshore producers, companies would be less inclined to invest in the future if the Government were to restrict production arbitrarily.
      One could argue that the arrangement proposed in the amendment puts more of a financial burden on the nation's oil revenues and therefore less on oil companies' returns. However, one must remember that whatever is put in must come out. That applies to any stockpiled commodity. If we are to regain the royalty oil in due course, production would have to be cut to make way for its production. Our production is small in world terms, particularly our production for export. United Kingdom production is soon likely to decline. Our production facilities are designed to produce according to profiles agreed with the Department, and after careful study of the characteristics of the reservoir and other matters. Therefore, any cut in current production would, of its very nature, interfere with those carefully designed plans and could lead to production being prolonged beyond the design life of the facilities, and in those circumstances could be lost for ever. That is a peculiar feature of the offshore developments in the harsh environment that we have. Some of those who talk about depletion sometimes ignore the physical nature of the production from our offshore industry.
      I would not, for the reasons that I have given, be happy to accept the amendment, not only for technical reasons but as a matter of principle. For certain fields, the powers that the hon. Gentleman seeks in his amendment would cut across other assurances that have been given, and understandings that have been reached between licensees and my Department during the consideration of development plans. In any case, if we ever wished to restrain production, the necessary powers to do it would be available under the model clauses. Therefore, powers along the lines of the amendment would not be required.

      107
      I repeat the point with which I opened the debate. If we were contemplating such powers, which we are not, they should be exercised by the Secretary of State and the Government and not by the agency.
      I hope that this useful debate has helped to explain Government policy and to put into perspective the reason for the policy. In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman may not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
      Mr. Rowlands: In view of the way that the Minister responded to amendment No. 2, I accept his assurance that he will look closely at the situation as it develops in the practical way that I suggested.
      On amendment No. 4, I have a sneaking suspicion that before too long it may be the oil companies themselves that will be coming to the Government to suggest ideas along the lines that I raised. I shall just wait and watch this space.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      9.52 pm
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had good and long debates on the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee, and tonight on Report. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have supported us throughout proceedings on the Bill. I also pay tribute to Opposition Members—particularly those who have led for the Opposition—for a useful series of constructive debates in an important area of our economy and on very important issues. I am grateful for the generally constructive way in which they have approached the subject, although I have not always been able to respond by agreeing with them.
      To go back to where we started, what we are doing in the Bill is very much based on a change in the structure of the world's oil market. It is that change in the structure and what is happening in the world of industry, business and commerce that caused my right hon. Friend and myself and the Government to look at the activities of BNOC, and particularly its main activity in the trading of participation oil. We were forced to the conclusion that, because of those changes in the market, the corporation had reached the end of its useful life.
      I emphasise that the abolition of the corporation does not represent an application of any degree of dogma to the public sector. Rather, it represents the flexible way in which we have endeavoured to respond to the change in market circumstances. At the same time, it provides for a welcome reduction in the size of the public sector, where interference was not needed, although I think that Opposition Members have acknowledged that I have not sought to make that a major part of my arguments in the debates on the Bill.
      This has been a useful debate. We have again debated the question of security of supply in times of shortage, a subject to which I attach great importance. If necessary, the agency can exercise certain powers. In our arrangements in relation to participation agreements, international matters and refineries, we have ensured that we retain all those important powers.
      In recent years BNOC has been successful in operating as a pipelines agency. I hope that the work of the Oil and Pipelines Agency will carry on and be commercially successful.
      108
      I hope that the agency's work will prosper. BNOC has shed all its pure participation supplies in co-operation with the licensees. It has shed also, with their co-operation part of the supplies that it has been obtaining under long-term contracts. I hope that the remaining suppliers will quickly find satisfactory alternative purchasers. The remaining term supplies which the agency can trade freely are now only one tenth of the level before my statement of 13 March. The price paid by the BNOC is what the corporation can realise in the market. To that extent, BNOC has already detached itself from setting a price. That is a good base on which the agency can start.
      I pay tribute to BNOC's staff. Things are now different. I wish the new agency and its staff every success.
      9.56 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: I thank the Minister of State for his kind words about the way that we have conducted our affairs. He has been unfailingly courteous to the Committee and to all hon. Members who have participated in the debates. I am sorry that we were not able to persuade him that in many ways he is fundamentally wrong. It remains our charge and case that, by abolishing the British National Oil Corporation, our oil supplies will be weakened. We do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's paper assurances from the oil companies, paper participation agreements, and the stripped-down agency which is set up under the Bill provide an adequate alternative form of security of supply. I have charged the Minister of State more than once with the utter complacency behind the way in which he has argued the case for the Bill and the way in which the Government have chosen to pursue the abolition route—abolishing a successful, vibrant and productive corporation.
      I am sorry that, despite our efforts, the agency that will be born in the Bill will be a pathetic stripped-down version of what we need. The new agency will be a declining organisation from the start—trading in declining amounts of royalty oil. I do not believe that the Minister will attract people of the necessary calibre and quality to work in that agency, as opposed to those who might reluctantly be forced to go to it from BNOC.
      The agency is basically self-extinguishing, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Already in oil circles the Minister's "GOPA"—Government Oil and Pipelines Agency—has been treated with contempt and derision, because everyone knows that it is not the real thing. We shall therefore vote against the Bill because we know that it is not the real thing. We look forward to the day when a Labour Government will establish a real British National Oil Corporation serving the nation's need and especially the challenge of the North sea in the 1990s.
      9.58 pm
      Mr. Portillo: I have had a number of opportunities to make known my views on the Bill, and I shall not weary the House by going into them at great length again.
      I am disappointed that, when the Government took the opportunity to abolish BNOC, they felt the need to set up an agency in its place. My principal worry is that the setting up of an agency means that the Government will continue to be involved in the oil market. There is still a danger that the Government will be seen as a price setter, although I understand the points made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. There may still be turbulent days ahead in the oil market. In the past, when conditions

      109
      on the oil market have become turbulent, someone has taken the blame for unsettling the oil price. As we enter the turbulent days ahead, some countries may again be looking for a scapegoat. I hope that my fears are groundless. Nevertheless, I harbour them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) and I attempted to persuade the Committee of the value of two amendments. One would have paved the way towards the privatisation of the oil pipelines and storage system, but we were unsuccessful in convincing the Committee of the merits of that scheme. I understood my right hon. Friend's argument that the time was not ripe for such a move. I was pleased——

      GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF AGENCY

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        Ordered,
        That, at this day's sitting, the Oil and Pipelines Bill and the Lords Amendments to the Trustee Savings Banks Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Michael Neubert.]

    OIL AND PIPELINES BILL
    Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Mr. Portillo: I was pleased to have my right hon. Friend's assurance that that matter could be reviewed from time to time.
    I hope that the Bill, which I support, will have a short life as an Act. My right hon. Friend has conducted the proceedings with considerable charm, and I thank him for that. However, he has not succeeded in convincing me that the agency will play a useful role, in particular in enhancing our security of supply. I look forward to the introduction in due course of an oil and gas agency abolition Bill. In November I shall listen extremely carefully to the Queen's Speech to see whether that welcome Bill will be included in next Session's business.
    10.1 pm
    Mr. Bruce: Today the Government have finished a job which I and the Labour party feel they should not have started. We have reached the point where it is as well to move on to a new policy to confront the changed circumstances. My colleagues and I felt that it was right and proper for the United Kingdom to have an integrated state oil corporation, as the British National Oil Corporation originally was. Its break-up is not in the United Kingdom's interests because it reduces the Government's bargaining power with oil companies. It has not been the Government's most conspicuous performance on privatisation, as many shareholders are discovering. However, it is now as well to finish the business, and for the Government to address themselves to developing an oil and gas policy, which they have not yet done.
    We are producing oil at the rate of 1 million barrels of oil a day more than our domestic requirements. There was never any agreement or debate either inside or outside the House that we should move through self-sufficiency to that level of production, but that is what we have done. In reality, the production, pricing and taxation policies of the United Kingdom North sea are determined by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, not the United Kingdom Government, and not in accordance with the British national interest. That happens to suit the Treasury's interests.
    110
    The generation to come will wonder why we produced 1 million barrels a day above our requirements, and why we constructed a taxation system that made it attractive for multinational companies to produce British North sea oil rather than oil from other reserves in other parts of the world, especially as that tax structure did not necessarily suit our national interests.
    The Labour party's attitude is often rightly suspicious, but wrongly hostile, towards the oil companies. It does riot seem to recognise that oil companies have skill and expertise which we use, and from which we have benefited. However, the Government seem not to recognise that the interests of multinational oil companies and the British national interest do not always coincide. There is a need for a much stronger recognition of that by the Government and for a much clearer debate on what our policy should be.
    Now that we are to pass this Bill, the Government should consider their policy in a clear environment, because it is high time that we had a sensible policy for the future development of the North sea. The Government's present policy will come home to roost soon, when production and revenue decrease and they realise that they have not provided for that sad and rainy day.
    10.4 pm
    Mr. Mike Woodcock: The present chairman of Rolls-Royce, Sir Francis Tombs, recently said that decision-making in the private sector tends to be market and profit-related whereas decision-making in the public sector tends to he highly variable, politically influenced and slow. He was speaking from vast experience of private and public sector management, and most Conservative Members would agree with his sentiments. Of course, most Labour Members would disagree with them.
    That division of opinion typifies the difference between the Government and the Opposition on the Bill. Arguments have dealt with which functions are best carried out by private industry and which are best carried out in the public sector. The British oil industry is typified by fierce, free competition, and its success in exploiting our national oil resources profitably provides an excellent case history of the benefits of free competition. It is a profitable industry that contributes massively to the public purse. It enjoys no subsidy, it is largely free of oppressive trade unions, and it has learnt the lessons of economic reality—all very different from some other primary energy industries.
    Those characteristics of the oil industry are clearly typical of many large commercial organisations. However, we would all agree that some functions are better carried out by state enterprise than by private enterprise.
    When I examined the Bill, I could see no problem with participation agreements and with royalties in kind. However, with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) I had some reservations about pipeline operations. We have 1,000 miles of pipeline and 41 installations established for war. Some strategic use remains, but their commercial use has been overtaken by events. One could argue that private interests would have operated the system more effectively than did the public sector, but against that we must consider the fact that the

    111
    principal reason for establishing the pipeline was strategic, that the strategic element remains and that it could increase in the future.
    We must come to terms with the fact that the pipeline system is little used in areas with a high defence use, but is used commercially much more in areas with a low defence use. It is difficult to establish suitable terms when defence and commercial considerations mix. However, the commercial users in my constituency at Stanlow, which is served by the pipeline, and the commercial operators in Humberside convinced me that they were happy with the present arrangements and that the management of the pipelines should remain with the state. That is why I concluded that the pipelines would be better managed by the agency.
    The Bill is desirable because it renders to the private sector those functions which should be rendered to it, and leaves in the public sector those functions which are best carried out there. I welcome the Bill, which I am sure will contribute to the ever-increasing fortunes of our oil industry.
    10.8 pm
    Mr. Dalyell: Like several of my colleagues from central Scotland and the senior staff of the BNOC, some of whom are my constituents, nothing will persuade me that that organisation was broken up for any other reason than political dogma. It is a crying shame, and the nation will learn to regret having given up the BNOC. I am sure that it was a mistake.
    One question that arose out of the debate has not been answered. Suppose that there is an understanding between British Petroleum and the Government. Is it sensible and right that that understanding should be in the form of a letter from a head of department in BP to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State? If there are these understandings, without going too much into the heirarchy about it, for heaven's sake, is not the right thing to have it from the chairman of BP to the Secretary of State? If they are so important, why is it done at such a low level?
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 94.

    Division No. 274]

    [10.10 pm

    AYES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Ancram, Michael

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Budgen, Nick

    Beith, A. J.

    Burt, Alistair

    Bellingham, Henry

    Butterfill, John

    Benyon, William

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

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

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Carttiss, Michael

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Blackburn, John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Chope, Christopher

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Cockeram, Eric

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Colvin, Michael

    Bright, Graham

    Coombs, Simon

    Brinton, Tim

    Cope, John

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Corrie, John

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Couchman, James

    Browne, John

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    112

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Pollock, Alexander

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Porter, Barry

    Dover, Den

    Portillo, Michael

    du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Powley, John

    Dunn, Robert

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Dykes, Hugh

    Raffan, Keith

    Eggar, Tim

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Evennett, David

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Fallon, Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Favell, Anthony

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Rowe, Andrew

    Fox, Marcus

    Ryder, Richard

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Greenway, Harry

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gregory, Conal

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

    Sims, Roger

    Henderson, Barry

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Speller, Tony

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Spencer, Derek

    Howells, Geraint

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    Knowles, Michael

    Stern, Michael

    Lang, Ian

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Lawler, Geoffrey

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Lightbown, David

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Lilley, Peter

    Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Lord, Michael

    Sumberg, David

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Maclean, David John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Maclennan, Robert

    Terlezki, Stefan

    Madel, David

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Major, John

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Marlow, Antony

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mather, Carol

    Tracey, Richard

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Waddington, David

    Merchant, Piers

    Wainwright, R.

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Walden, George

    Moate, Roger

    Wall, Sir Patrick

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Waller, Gary

    Moore, John

    Ward, John

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Murphy, Christopher

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Wheeler, John

    Needham, Richard

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Nelson, Anthony

    Wilkinson, John

    Neubert, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Newton, Tony

    Wolfson, Mark

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wood, Timothy

    Normanton, Tom

    Woodcock, Michael

    Norris, Steven

    Yeo, Tim

    Osborn, Sir John

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Ottaway, Richard

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Tony Durant.

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    NOES

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    Benn, Tony

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    113

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

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Buchan, Norman

    Ewing, Harry

    Caborn, Richard

    Fatchett, Derek

    Callaghan, Jim (Hey w'd & M)

    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Fisher, Mark

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Flannery, Martin

    Clarke, Thomas

    Foster, Derek

    Clay, Robert

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

    Godman, Dr Norman

    Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

    Golding, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Gourlay, Harry

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Cowans, Harry

    Hardy, Peter

    Craigen, J. M.

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Dalyell, Tam

    Haynes, Frank

    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

    Home Robertson, John

    Deakins, Eric

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Dewar, Donald

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Dixon, Donald

    Lambie, David

    Dormand, Jack

    Lamond, James

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Leighton, Ronald

    Eadie, Alex

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Eastham, Ken

    McCartney, Hugh

    114

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    McGuire, Michael

    Prescott, John

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Randall, Stuart

    McKelvey, William

    Redmond, M.

    McNamara, Kevin

    Robertson, George

    McTaggart, Robert

    Rogers, Allan

    McWilliam, John

    Rowlands, Ted

    Madden, Max

    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Skinner, Dennis

    Maxton, John

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Michie, William

    Stott, Roger

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Tinn, James

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wareing, Robert

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wilson, Gordon

    Parry, Robert

    Patchett, Terry

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. Sean Hughes.

    Pike, Peter

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

  Trustee Savings Banks Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Speaker: Earlier, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asked me to consider whether the Bill might be hybrid. I have considered the matter with great care. I must point out that the business before the House is the consideration of Lords amendments. No individual bank or depositor in Scotland is singled out for adverse treatment from among the class of trustee savings banks or depostitors in Scotland by these amendments. Therefore, no question of hybridity arises.

  Trustee Savings Banks Bill
    Clause 1

      PRELIMINARY
      Lords amendment: No 1, in page 1, line 9, "banks" insert
      "other than Trustee Savings Bank Scotland Limited which is hereby excluded from this Act"
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out from 'which' to end and add
      'shall not be included in this Act unless a majority of depositors of Trustee Savings Bank Scotland have first given their assent in a postal ballot.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments (b) to (d), plus (i) and (ii).
      Mr. Wilson: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that ruling. Although I may disagree a little, I acknowledge that your view must prevail in these matters. I am grateful for the attention that you have given to my point of order.
      I only wish that it were not necessary for me to move this amendment. If the Government had been prepared to accept the Lords amendment itself, or its spirit, TSB Scotland would have been able to continue its separate existence and I would not be moving the amendment, which suggests that the matter should go to a ballot of the depositors of the company.
      I make it clear to those hon. Members who have not followed the debate that has been going on for so long that we are not dealing with a small subsidiary. TSB Scotland is the 11th largest company in Scotland and the most profitable bank by a long way, with £10,500 to £11,000 worth of earnings per employee. That compares with the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland, for which the relevant figure is between £6,500 and £7,500, and the Clydesdale bank at the lower figure of £3,000 per employee. The Lords amendment is right. TSB Scotland is viable in its own right and should be deleted from the Bill. I shall give the reasons in due course.
      The directors of the Edinburgh chamber of commerce passed a unanimous motion asking the Government to accept the Lords decision on the grounds that it was important to retain the autonomy of financial institutions in the city of Edinburgh. On 20 April 1985 Mr. Souness, the manager of the Life Association of Scotland and the chairman of the Edinburgh chamber of commerce, referred to the cosmetic formula that had been agreed with Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who a few months ago was instrumental in and deserves credit for derailing the Bill
      116
      in the House of Lords. He said that the assurance would not count for much and that the issue was about where power lay. Criticism was made of the attitude adopted by the chairman of the Trustee Savings bank's central board. Sir John Read, when he visited Scotland. An editorial in The Scotsman described him as holding "the obdurate belief" that he and his fellow directors had got it right.
      The Government's compromise in their intended replacement of the first Lords amendment is not worth a row of beads. I described it at the time as a spineless surrender and I do not retract that statement. The various assurances that are to be found in the letter addressed by Sir John Read to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on or about 16 May 1985 amount to very little. Sir John Read tossed to the Scots a string of beads to keep the natives happy.
      The compromise suggests that the registered office of the group should be in Scotland. I am not sure what advantage the Government see in that proposal. The headquarters office, where the power lies, where decisions will be taken and where most of the money will be turned over, will be in London, so the conclusion must be that, like the Distillers Company or Burmah Oil, although nominally the registered office will be in Scotland, the real power and the real headquarters will be in London.
      It is also suggested that there will be proposals to ensure that all banks in the TSB group remain as separate banks. This was always intended, so I do not know what advantage TSB Scotland, the banking fraternity in Scotland, the customers of TSB Scotland or the financial institutions in Scotland will derive from the proposals.
      Another suggestion is that the trustees will be the directors of the new company. No more ridiculous suggestion could be made. The trustees of TSB Scotland have no credibility whatsoever. They cannot be trusted, apparently, to look after the interests of the Scottish bank. They do not intend to allow it to continue to have an independent existence. If that is so, how can they be trusted further?
      I must make some comment on the strange ethics of the situation. Having willingly sacrificed themselves to the predator, the TSB Group, they appear willing to remain in the saddle to be appointed directors of the new banking subsiduary in Scotland. I am not sure what remuneration they will receive for that, whether it is 300 or 3,000 or 30,000 pieces of silver for betraying the birthright which should have been theirs after the creation of the trustee savings bank movement in Scotland two centuries ago. That pecuniary interest sits ill with the role of trustees. Even if it had been independent at the outset, the group will retain the veto, which it can exercise over the choice of new trustees. Any initiative which TSB Scotland might have been able to maintain under the new regime, will be killed off over a period if the TSB Group so wishes.
      10.30 pm
      There are also managerial problems associated with the changes which have been suggested. At present, these directors will not be elected by anyone: they will be appointed, if we agree with Sir John Read, the chairman of the TSB Group, as new directors of the company, without election. They will not be responsible in any way to any independent body of shareholders. Under that kind of regime, TSB Scotland will go into slack and supine

      117
      managerial hands. That is because, without responsibility to shareholders, there will be little reason for management to exert itself.
      If one looks at the comparison which I gave at the beginning of my remarks between the earning capacity per employee of the Scottish banks, it is noticeable that the one with the lowest figure of £3,000 per employee, is the Clydesdale bank. It is the only Scottish bank which is a fully owned subsidiary of an external bank, the Midland. Much of the profitable work which could be undertaken by the Clydesdale bank goes to the Midland and to its specialist investment companies and merchant banks. The Clydesdale is therefore denuded of some of the more lucrative sections of the market.
      Yet this seems to be the area to which we will be condemning TSB Scotland if the House succeeds in overturning the Lords amendment to cut TSB Scotland out of this bad Bill. These directors will be a self-perpetuating oligarchy. They will be appointed by no one, elected by no one and responsible to no one. That is bad in itself. As for the proposal that 75 per cent. of the directors will have to live in Scotland, that is the merest token that could ever have been devised, and in relation to the safeguarding of the net worth, it can be overtaken in the course of time.
      We have a thrusting, dynamic bank at present, but the picture will change dramatically if the Lords amendment is over turned. The Government are on very uncertain ground over the Bill. The amendment I have suggested in lieu of the Lords amendment which the Government intend to demolish, is intended to ensure that, before any precipitate or final action is taken, there should be a decision by the depositors of the bank in a ballot. A majority of the depositors should agree to the changes which have been suggested by the TSB. There are specific reasons why that is desirable.
      I do not feel it necessary to rehearse some of the background information I gave you, Mr. Speaker, in my point of order earlier today. If one looks at the opinion expressed by Mr. John Murray, QC, to the Trustee Savings bank central board—that is, the London body—one sees the assertion that under Scots law the trustee savings banks in Scotland are owned by the contributors. The contributors are the depositors and the depositors are the members of the bank. Therefore, the ownership of the bank rests with the depositors. If the opinion is correct, they are entitled to the produce, the reserves and assets, of the bank. I should have thought that extending wealth within the community and ensuring the widest possible ownership of the assets of this successful institution would be welcome to the Government. It is surprising that the Treasury was prepared to say in the White Paper that there was doubt about the ownership.
      Some of the matters that I raised during the earlier points of order about the information given to the House require answers from the Treasury. Did the Government receive a copy of the opinion? Did they conduct their own legal inquiries into ownership? If the central board had received such an opinion, suggesting that ownership rested with depositors, would not it have been desirable for the bank to go to the Court of Session with an action of declarator asking the court to declare as to ownership, so that that was cleared out of the way at the start?
      No attempt has been made by TSB Scotland or by the central board to apprise the depositors, the prima facie owners of the hank, of their rights. It was surely essential that they should have done so. The bank was established
      118
      for the customers and they have put their faith and money into TSB Scotland. Over successive generations, they have built up a very successful business which is now to be destroyed.
      Given the opinion that has been received and the fact that there is to be an action in court tomorrow, it is all the more regrettable that the Government have precipitately determined to drive on regardless. Many people will regard it as legalised theft if, by an Act of Parliament, the ownership and resources of the bank are taken away from the working people for whom it was established and distributed to speculators, which is what will happen if the flotation goes ahead.
      Many people in Scotland who have no objection to flotations and joint stock companies feel that this example of exploitation should not be allowed to proceed.
      The Government wish to defeat the Lords amendment. My amendment suggests that before any other action takes place, the owners of the bank—the depositors—should be consulted in a postal ballot to get their views. The Government are keen on postal and other ballots in other areas. Before transferring the bank's assets to their friends in the City, they should at least test the strength of their position.
      I cannot see what objection there can be to getting the agreement of the depositors. If the depositors, deemed the owners, agree to the demutualisation, if that is the correct term, of the company, at least TSB Scotland, the TSB Group and the Government will be on far stronger ground. That will be the result of a majority vote in favour. It is incumbent on the Government to tell the House whether they will accept the amendment which I have tabled. If they do not respond and if they fail to say yes, I hope that they will explain why insufficient information about this sordid affair has been placed before the House.
      We are dealing with an important Scottish company. When I started my opposition to the Bill, I did so primarily on the basis that it would be a loss to the Scottish economy and the financial scene if this huge unit were to be taken out of our control. Its removal would inflict considerable damage on us.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I am following the hon. Gentleman closely. He is making a strong plea for the bank to be left in Scottish control. However, earlier in his remarks he was critical of those in control of the bank's affairs for apparently selling out. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
      Mr. Wilson: Indeed I can have it both ways. I usually do, and I am usually right. I have explained that my objection to the Bill at the outset was based on the economic and financial loss that the Scottish economy would face. However, we have run into a more fundamental issue, which is whether such a company, which has had successful mutual control in the past, should have that form of control unilaterally dismantled without the consent of the depositors, who I believe to be the true owners of the bank.
      We in Scotland have had successful mutual companies in the insurance section which have done very well. I would not trust the trustees as directors in controlling the future of TSB Scotland, especially if they are answerable to no one—except ultimately, I suppose, the TSB central board. I accept that the bank has built up extremely well in recent years, has served its customers and

      119
      expanded its services. One can recognise work well done of that sort but it is still possible to criticise the trustees of TSB Scotland for their ultimate lack of vision. It appears that they have close sight but no long sight of the future.
      Many Scottish companies have been taken over in the past and when that has happened the vitality has often seeped out of them and has not been replaced. Eventually these companies have either been entirely absorbed—that happened to many individual insurance companies which were based in Scotland—or closed, with job losses and a loss of leadership in the Scottish community.
      If the Government insist on opposing Lords amendment No. 1, which I consider to offer the best solution, they should consider the formula which I have outlined in amendment (a) which provides that, before TSB Scotland is included in their proposals, consent should be obtained from the depositors by way of a postal ballot. In that way the Government would emerge with great credit. It is still open to them to take that course rather than to find that they have disappointed the Scottish community' in the unfortunate way in which the Bill has been prepared.
      I could accept from the Minister the view that he has asserted in the past that the Bill is not one in which the Government have a pecuniary interest and that he is acting as agent for the TSB Group and, through that, TSB Scotland, but an agent is responsible to a principal. In this case, the principal is not necessarily the TSB trustees but the owners of the bank, the depositors. If that is so, the Minister would be acting in dereliction of his duty as agent if he accepted instructions from the wrong principal.
      Now that he has the information and opinion that I have supplied, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government should not wish to be involved in a scandal of this sort and, even now, will accept a solution which would remove them from the hook on which they have been placed.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Donald Dewar: The new TSB's difficult birth is being attended with much doubt and uncertainty. I have no wish, in what I thought optimistically would be a short debate, to rehearse the whole history of the affair. The central issue with which we are concerned in this group of amendments is whether the exclusion of TSB Scotland from the Bill, as brought forward in another place, should survive and whether, if it does not survive, how adequate will be the Government's replacement provisions.
      The debate in the other place represented an interesting episode. Lord Taylor of Gryfe apparently has an unbounded enthusiasm for devolution in the world of banking, though that enthusiasm does not have a wider application, if I remember the noble Lord's history.
      I do not go all the way with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) or with the depositors in writing off as totally worthless the concessions that have been extracted. In one of the depositors' circulars, those concessions were described as an insult to the intelligence of the Scottish electorate. While that was an overstatement, a number of questions need answering about those concessions and I hope that the Minister will provide the answers.
      120
      I am sure that I speak for many hon. Members when I say that we have no enthusiasm for the self-perpetuating board, as envisaged. The board of TSB Scotland will renew itself. It is the equivalent in the world of nature of the amoeba in the sense that it is self-generating, needing no outside help, although there is a negative check in the approval of the main board. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but I expect that there was an explanation of whether they would be executive directors and whether they would be part-time or full-time. The Minister might wish to clear that up.
      More helpful is the fact that the chairman and chief executive of each subsidiary bank will serve on the main board and that there will be no reduction in the worth of the bank without the consent of two thirds of that subsidiary bank's board of directors, although a cynic might ask what the worth of that is, given their silence on present events.
      The real question concerns the value of the safeguards. The Minister said that there would be no vesting order until all the alternations in the articles of association had been made and the promised safeguards were in position. However, articles of association can be altered at a later date. The trouble is that the safeguards offered are immediate and there is no guarantee that they will stand the test of time. The Minister may wish to comment on that important matter, especially when we consider the adequacy or otherwise of what he proposes to put in place of the Lords amendment.
      It is difficult to be objective about these issues. As we contemplate the scene, one can hear the creaks of bandwagons rumbling, and certain sections of the SNP—I am careful to say "certain sections—have been shamelessly jumping aboard. Last week it was wreaths in memory of the Labour party at the Royal High building; this week it is the Trustee Savings bank. Goodness knows what it will be next week. We must look at the arguments. There are two main areas of contention—one is the form of ownership proposed for the new organisation and the second is the loss of Scottish identity subsumed in the larger United Kingdom organisation.
      I am not convinced by some of the rather romantic visions of the TSB as presently constituted, which have been used to buttress some of the debates during the course of the Bill. I do not want to go back to the philosophy of the Rev. Henry Duncan of Ruthwell and his famous strongbox with its three separate locks. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), whose peon of praise for the good cleric I read with interest, that he is a rather unlikely hero for a Conservative Member because his other characteristic was a decision to defy an interdict from the Court of Session during the famous legal proceedings in the Strathbogie case running up to the disruption. I would have thought that that would not have commended itself to Conservatives.
      In any event whatever the Rev. Henry Duncan may or may not have done, there is a somewhat rosy coloured glow as people look at how the status of depositors has developed during the course of the TSB movement. I remember an interesting chapter in Olive Checkland's book "Philanthropy in Victorian Scotland", which deals with this at some length. I recommend it to anyone who is interested. I shall weary the House with only one sentence, which is:
      "The concept of trusteeship was an elitist notion: depositors had no voice in the management of the Savings Banks."

      121
      That holds true today, even as it did in the days of Victorian philanthropy that are sometimes beloved of Government Back Benchers.
      I am confident that the average depositor—one of the nameless 1·25 million, of whom there are several on the Benches behind me—thinks that he has a substantial stake in the management of the TSB as presently constituted. However, it is fair to concede that there is a big difference between management and ownership. Whatever the position of the depositors in terms of management, they have a special position in the bank that is not fully recognised in the scheme embodied in this legislation.
      There has been a great deal of talk about the Page committee. The findings on ownership were quoted effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on Second Reading. The House will remember that when that committee considered something very much like the solution that has now been adopted, it reached the conclusion that it was neither practical nor desirable.
      There is also the open question whether the bank is or is not, in the law of Scotland, owned by its depositors. The hon. Member for Dundee, East quoted the opinion of a well-known Queen's counsel at the Scottish Bar, Mr. John Murray. We are led to understand—and I have not seen a copy of the document—that his view was that, as an unincorporated body, it was owned by the depositors. Of course, that is not the law of the land. It is an educated guess about what the courts might find if they were invited to consider that question. But it underlines that we are in a peculiar position tonight because we are all aware that there is an action pending in the courts—an application for interdict—that is likely to be heard tomorrow. None of us know the outcome of that. It will be strange if the Court of Session says tomorrow that ownership is with the depositors and grant an interdict on that basis.
      Perhaps the Minister can tell us the Government's view of the effect of such an interdict. If he has doubts, he can obtain an instant opinion from another QC sitting on his left—the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
      Will Parliament override the court and make the interdict useless? What will be the effect of that interdict? What will happen to depositors who have been established in ownership and have a tangible right, which we are alienating, who will have no rights in the courts because Parliament is legislating to destroy their right to pursue their claim? That raises interesting questions which are not academic and which might become horribly relevant tomorrow.
      I hope that the Minister will give us the benefit of his thoughts on the matter. If he cannot do that, I hope that we shall hear from the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
      The Page committee, the opinion of counsel and the atmosphere of the trustee savings bank movement has been referred to. I believe that a substantial shift is envisaged in the Bill. It is not a matter that involves only a technical reconstruction of company status.
      Leaving aside the question whether the bank is thrusting and dynamic, the TSB has served its depositors and its existence is based upon offering certain services. No one apart from salaried professionals, makes a profit or obtains a fee.
      Under the new arrangement trustees will have a different remit. They will be bound by the Companies Act. Their job will be to maximise profits for the benefit of a
      122
      different body of people—the shareholders. There might be an overlap. They will do that by extracting profit from the depositors. That will create a different atmosphere.
      The important position now held by depositors was recognised by the Minister in his recent letter to Mr. R. A. G. Bennett of the depositors' association when he said that the preferential share option scheme was a recognition of the special place of the depositors in the TSB set-up.
      Depositors are in a special position. The evidence for that is contained not only in the Page report, but in the way that the bank has been operating. To that we want to add the Scottish dimension. Scotland has a long and distinguished involvement and a well-developed network. Central funds have been gathered there. We have come a long way since the Rev. Henry Duncan's banks were established to
      "ameliorate the conditions of the lower orders"
      in Scotland.
      I am told that 3,000 employees are involved, that the operating profit is £32 million, that there are 2 million accounts and 1·5 million depositors. There is no doubt that the Scottish bank would be a substantial entity if it existed in its own right. That was tacitly admitted by an authority that might appeal at least to Conservative Members—Lord Bruce-Gardyne—who said on 16 April 1985 that TBS Scotland would be well able to stand on its own two feet. I do not think that there would be any argument about that.
      I do not want to argue that case at this stage at any length, but there is an understandable anxiety. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock on Second Reading, when she pointed out that there was a danger of the bank, weak in the south, using the vast majority of its resources over the opening years to try to cover the areas where it had not a long and well-established tradition. She rightly said that that should not be at the expense of Scotland and the north.
      11 pm
      We have here a fair amendment that calls for consultation. There is clearly a case for that consultation, based on the Scottish experience. There may be an argument about whether it is right to go ahead on the present arrangements, but that should be tested. I hope that I have established that the depositors are people who have a particular interest and should be consulted.
      I have no doubt that substantial arguments can be put forward by the promoters of the scheme. They can argue that the employees are, as I understand, largely in favour of the reorganisation going ahead. They can talk about a better service for the customer from a commercial bank with a more competitive system. They can argue that the depositors' association is unrepresentative. It has not hidden the fact that it came late in the field and has only about 200 members out of the 1,250,000 depositors. The promoters can argue that an independent bank would be open to a substantial possibility of takeovers and would be in a weak position. There are all sorts of arguments, and it is not for us tonight to come to a conclusion on them.
      I have tried to put some arguments and the hon. Member for Dundee, East has done the same. On both sides there are arguments that should be decided by the depositors, and they should be consulted before we come to a final conclusion on the matter. The very fact that they are entitled to preferential treatment perhaps underlines the case for consultation of the kind that I have mentioned.

      123
      I am a member of a building society. I was surprised to discover that I am a member because I have only a few pounds in an ordinary share account. A couple of days ago I received a voting slip, because the building society is about to amalgamate. It is asking me to vote on whether I want that amalgamation to go ahead. I accept that a building society has a very different structure from that of a trustee savings bank, but it is thought not inappropriate that everyone who has a deposit in the building society should be allowed to vote on whether the Alliance should join with the Leicester. All we are asking is for the same sort of basic right for the depositors in the TSB.
      I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at the amendments. I hope that they will accept that there is a case for consultation, given the Scottish dimension that we have been talking about and given the undoubted change in the status of depositors that would result from the Bill. If the Minister will accept the amendment, or one of them, we can proceed with harmony and consent and there need be no further delay. If he cannot, I believe that we should divide the House upon it and, if we are unsuccessful, mark our disapproval by dividing also on the main Question.
      Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask your advice on the important issue that we are considering? Various privileges are to be conferred by the Bill on depositors with the Trustee Savings Bank. There will be hon. Members in the House this evening who may be intending to vote and who may have accounts and be depositors with the Trustee Savings Bank.
      I have an account with the Trustee Savings Bank which contains 81p, but the principle goes beyond that. In view of the lucrative offers that are being patronisingly placed before depositors, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you advise me—and perhaps the House as well—as to the position of hon. Members if as depositors they were to find themselves in the Division Lobbies this evening?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The practice of the House is clear. Any hon. Member who has a pecuniary interest in the matter being debated and who is participating in the debate should declare that pecuniary interest. All hon. Members may vote on a matter of public interest. I hope that that is clear.
      Sir Hector Monro: I am sure that Dr. Henry Duncan would be surprised that, 175 years after founding the savings bank movement, his name has been trotted about the Floor of the House at 11 pm. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) thought that it was unlikely that I would support Dr. Duncan, but I do. He set a fine example of sticking by one's principles over the disruption. At least a fine monument was erected in memory of his good work. This is unlikely to be reciprocated in the streets of Garscadden.
      I think that Dr. Duncan would want the House to bear in mind that he spent much of his time promoting the savings bank movement in England and Wales. He was internationally minded and outward looking—very far removed from the narrow internal views of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson).
      It is important to delve into the history not of the distant past but of the past two or three months. I should like my
      124
      hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to marry Government amendment (d) with the important letter from Sir John Read, the TSB chairman, which was printed in detail in the other place on 4 July in reply to a written question by Lord Taylor of Gryfe to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. How binding is the letter? How tied into the legislation is the assurance that in Scotland we will have the many factors set out in the letter, especially in relation to
      "an independently managed Scottish bank"—[Official Report. House of Lords,4 July 1985; Vol. 465, c. 1394.]
      which is registered in Scotland—I think that this is covered by deed—the issues relative to the charitable foundations under paragraph 4 (iii) and the membership of the Scottish board under paragraph 4(v)?
      If my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary spells out in detail how he sees the arrangements for conducting the business of the Trustee Savings bank—both the United Kingdom and the Scottish groups—and how they tie together, that may well go a long way towards alleviating the concern in some parts of Scotland. This concern has not been reciprocated by the staff of the TSB nor originally by the trustees when the Bill came before us on Second Reading.
      All of us who live in Scotland, who are interested in the bank's success and who realise that a large part of the bank's success in Scotland will go towards making it a great successor in the United Kingdom—[Interruption.]Why does the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) laugh at that? Is he not proud that the Scottish bank can take the lead in the United Kingdom? Should he not be pleased, rather than sit there girning away?
      Mr. Donald Stewart: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware from his experience that that is not the way the scenario will operate. The bank will simply become a branch office without any power.
      Sir Hector Monro: Despite all the years that the right hon. Gentleman has served in the House his mind never broadens or becomes more up to date. In some years' time he will realise that tonight he witnessed the passage of legislation that greatly enhanced the prestige of the TSB in Scotland.
      I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate, which is broadly similar to the Second Reading debate in the other place, he will spell out how the letter from Sir John Read is tied into legislation. We want an assurance that what Sir John Read said will take place, and is bound as far as possible by legislation.
      Mr. Jim Craigen: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that we were in a peculiar position. Indeed, we are, because we are dealing with a peculiar Bill. On Second Reading I declared an interest as a depositor in the Trustee Savings bank, and, as hon. Members know, I opposed Second Reading.
      In the other place Lord Gowrie said that the Government could not allow the Bill to proceed to Royal Assent with clause 3. The Bill should not be enacted. Therefore, I would not be unhappy if the Government's motion, that we disagree with the Lords, were refused. It is becoming increasingly evident that serious questions about the ownership of the bank, if not in England and Wales, certainly in Scotland, have not been adequately resolved.

      125
      The group of amendments arises from an amendment of Lord Taylor of Gryfe, which succeeded on Report in another place. That amendment, which aroused a great deal of interest in Scotland, revealed the extent to which Edinburgh's financial establishment had been sleeping because it came some time after this House had given the Bill a Second Reading. It does not instil me with much confidence in Edinburgh as the second financial centre in the United Kingdom that Edinburgh took so long to wake up to what was going on.
      It is more than anecdotal——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but an unreasonable volume of noise is coming from the vicinity of the Bar of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be given the opportunity to deliver his speech without too much background noise.
      Mr. Craigen: It has been suggested to me that Lord Taylor's amendment might not have been passed in the other place if the President of Malawi had not been visiting the United Kingdom. There was a big dinner in his honour at Windsor Castle and, therefore, many on the Government side in the other place were absent. I am sure that Dr. Banda, who resided in and was educated in Scotland, would have a good old chuckle at that.
      The more serious aspect was the flaw in Lord Taylor's amendment. Reference was made to the letter from the chairman of the central board. All hon. Members may not share the simplistic confidence exuded by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), but it seems an eggshell of a scheme. The first tap of a wooden spoon would give us a smack of what the scheme amounts to.
      We have been told that the head office of TSB Scotland will be in Scotland, and that the TSB Group's registered office will be in Edinburgh. I understand that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) has already said that it wants the entire operation to be located in Edinburgh. The shareholders' annual general meeting will be in Edinburgh, no doubt at the time of the Edinburgh festival.
      11.15 pm
      Those assurances, and the supposed safeguards about residential qualification for the directors of the new TSB in Scotland, do not amount to much. They certainly do not overcome the basic problem of ownership, which the Government have not fully resolved, and the question whether it is right for the Government to consent to the flotation of TSB on the stock market.
      Lord Taylor in another place said that the concessions that had been agreed with the chairman of the central board of the TSB were more than half a loaf. However, having examined the concessions closely, it seems to me that they are little more than a handful of grain. They provide some managerial assurances, not proprietorial safeguards, because they do not alter the effect of the change in control.
      This might be a convenient moment to say why I tabled amendment (ii), which calls for consultative arrangements with depositors. Although the Government are likely to have their way this evening, I believe that there should be adequate arrangements to ensure that the depositors with the TSB have a voice in the new set-up. It is clear from Sir John Read's letter that he envisages that no more than about one tenth of the depositors will become shareholders of the new TSB. We have been told all along that it is desirable to have shareholders because we wish to involve
      126
      many more people in the running of the bank. yet it is explicitly acknowledged in the letter that not many more than one tenth of the depositors are likely to become shareholders.
      Therefore, it is all the more important that some mechanism is written into the Bill so that the other nine tenths of depositors can have some machinery by which their views and complaints can be made known to the board. That should not be left to the whim of the chairman or the board. Since the TSB wished to be different and to involve more people than do the clearing banks, I should have thought that it would have wanted to have some customer representation within the established arrangements. That is why it was important to table the amendment.
      Some reference has been made to mutuality. A depositors' association has been set up. Irrespective of whether it has 230 or 250 members so far, the fact is that there must be some recognition of depositors' rights in this exercise.
      I noticed with interest that, in the letter which the Treasury Minister sent to the chairman of the Scottish TSB Depositors' Association on 4 July 1985, the Government made their position quite clear on the matter of mutuality. Copies of the letter were issued as a parliamentary answer. The Minister said:
      "I agree of course that there are successful mutual financial institutions. But it is one thing to allow long-established mutuals to continue in business in their traditional fields of activity and quite another to set up brand-new mutual arrangements in modern circumstances."
      The Government effectively appear to be trumpeting a new arrangement that organisations will be either private or public. In the Government's scheme of fiscal and economic affairs, it seems that there will be no encouragement and precious little assistance to mutuality as a concept. I wonder whether that is entirely desirable.
      Many hon. Members have experience of mutuality in other areas. The TSB is not strictly a mutual, but I see no reason why it could not have moved towards the concept of mutuality. I think that the TSB could raise the capital for which it is looking, had it had shares which could be indexed and interest paid. I do not think that it needs to float an unknown business on the stock exchange to raise the capital which it says is necessary for many of these developments.
      When the Minister tells the House why we should accept the Government proposal and disagree with the Lords amendment, I should like him to say whether the Government, had they known counsel's opinion, which was apparently given to the TSB in April 1979, would have come forward with a Bill, or would have left it entirely to the Trustee Savings bank to introduce a private Bill.
      On Second Reading, I described the measure as closet privatisation. I want to know where the Treasury stands in all this. Many questions have been unanswered in the conduct of this highly undesirable plan to sell off the TSB.
      As I said before, it will be a highly lucrative exercise. Those who buy will not be risking anything in the way that they would be in buying equities in a business. The reserves of the TSB are such that it will be an Aladdin's cave. I am not sure whether the Minister is Ali Baba or one of the 40 thieves, but I think it is important that the Treasury should spell out precisely where it stands, given the knowledge that the House now has.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I declare an interest. I am, or was, a depositor in the Edinburgh savings bank, and discovered, following the publication of the Bill, that my account, which stood at £1 10s 6d, is now worth £2.68 28 years later. I do not know whether that is in favour of or against the present structure of the bank, but that is the extent of my interest. No doubt I will be one of the thieves of whom the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has just spoken, because I would be entitled to shares if the matter goes forward to flotation.
      Several matters of important principle are raised. It is obvious that no hon. Member—and it is not yet settled in the courts—is certain about the legal constitution of the organisation of the Trustee Savings bank. Without wishing to give a firm opinion, I would say that the Bill would turn a non-profit-making association into a profit-making company. If I am right, the distinction is that the original association had, under the trusts legislation—that is why it is called a trustee savings bank—a duty to maximise the benefits of the depositors. That is why the name was changed from the Edinburgh savings bank or any other bank to the Trustee Savings bank. Those who were in charge of it therefore had a duty to maximise the benefits of the beneficiaries—the depositors.
      The new company has a completely different duty. It is exempted from, even if it is not precisely under, the requirements of trusts legislation, to maximise profits as a commercial organisation. Such a company has an utterly different structure in law in Scotland and in understanding as an organisation. The Government are merely the agent, runner or duty doer for the board of the TSB in putting forward the Bill. I do not believe that the Government would ever have done that if they had conceived of the legal structure of the bank.
      We do not know what the legal structure of the bank is. The Court of Session will begin to decide that tomorrow. We know however, that it was called the Trustee Savings bank because it was believed to be such an organisation. It would have been a contravention of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 if anybody had called it that and it had not been a trustee savings bank.
      I do not wish to judge something which, if it is not sub judice, is very nearly sub judice. Let us assume that, as I have proposed, the court decides that the organisation comes under the umbrella of trusts legislation and has a duty to provide for the maximisation of the benefit of the beneficiaries—the depositors. Then the Bill will supravene abante the rights of the beneficiaries. It will be taking a trust and making it into a commercial enterprise without the consent of the beneficiaries, contrary to the duties of the trustees.
      11.30 pm
      We can take it the other way. The case may go to the first division and then to the other place, so it may be a long process. I am not looking into the motivation of those who raised the action but into the rights and wrongs of the matter. Supposing that the courts decide the other way. Then, have not the depositors, all these years, been misled as to their rights, and the duties of the directors?
      I know that there are political motives. I know that there are those who say that anything that is Scottish must remain Scottish, and those who want to know whether the ban will be more Scottish if Sir John Read's letter is implemented than ever it was before. I am unimpressed by either the one side or the other. I am impressed by the fact
      128
      that the defensive letter of Sir John Read has no force in statute and that any allegation that it is an earnest of eternal will has no force.
      I am certain of various matters that concern me. The directors sought the opinion of counsel, which they were always entitled to reject, and which has regrettably—because it is a confidential matter—been revealed. It has been revealed, and we understand that they were informed and did not challenge that information, that the bank belonged to the depositors and that they were trustees for the beneficiaries. The directors then came to the Government to ask them to derogate their duty and later the function of that charity—trusts are charities. That raises serious poblems. If we are then told that the same adviser is advising them on the matters in which they are trying to reverse his opinion, that also raises serious matters.
      We are told that Lord Taylor of Gryfe in the other place acts for Morgan Grenfell, which is, after all, acting with Noble Grossart in the Bell's whisky deal. The day after Lord Taylor accepted the advice, who was it that Sir John Read said would be a satisfactory director? It was Angus Grossart, of Noble Grossart. That raises other matters.
      I am not, and hope will never be, able to understand anything about finance. I hate alligators, and I hate predators, and I hate everything about finance. However, if the financial institutions of Scotland are to be run on the basis that the TSB gets the advice of top counsel, hides that advice from the Government and asks the Government to bring in a Bill that contradicts it, then asks the same counsel to advise it in the opposite direction, and then in the other place the Government accept a compromise from a noble Lord who is in the financial institution of Morgan Grenfell, and the bank of Morgan Grenfell, in league with Noble Grossart says that the safeguard is to appoint one of their directors, all I can say is that the scepticism of a natural Jacobite Episcopalian is confirmed.
      I am not a little Scotlander, but I am a little depositor in Trustee Savings Bank Scotland. I am very sceptical about constitutional arrangements whereby a trust becomes a public company when the question whether or not it is a trust has yet to be decided by the courts. The principles I have raised tonight ought to give a great deal of thought to a great number of people.
      Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I am not an accountant, a Scot or even a Pict, I have listened with great interest to this debate and have become increasingly disturbed by the points about interest that have been raised. I am a partner in a firm that is a substantial customer of the Trustee Savings bank. Originally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you made a distinction between declaring an interest and speaking and then voting on a matter of public interest. I am not entirely certain about the distinction between the public interests and the private interests of a firm like mine. If this flotation takes place, my firm and I, as a partner in that firm, will have a substantial interest in it. I should welcome a ruling about how you make a distinction between public and private interests in a matter of this nature. At the moment I am reluctant either to speak or eventually to vote upon it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has taken such a close interest in this matter, since I have been disturbed by the unreasonable

      129
      noises that have been disrupting the debate from below the Gangway. I doubt whether I can usefully add to my earlier ruling that all hon. Members have a right and a responsibility, in accordance with the practice of the House, to declare any pecuniary interests that they may have in the subject under debate.
      Mr. Porter: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On behalf of my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) I apologise for the noise that they have been creating, but I have been seeking their advice. I am no wiser, nor am I much better informed about the distinction between public and private interests. Therefore in accordance with my conscience I declare an interest. It would be quite wrong of me to vote on this matter.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: This has been a strange debate. The Bill has followed a very unexpected course. When the Government first introduced it, the matters that have become so controversial tonight, at a late stage in the proceedings on the Bill, appear not to have ruffled the feathers of those who are alleged to be most at risk from the proposals of the trustees of the Trustee Savings bank Scotland.
      There has been a penumbra of criticism throughout the debate of the motivation of the trustees in suggesting this flotation and of the Bill that the Government have adopted—a penumbra that became rather more solid when the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) spoke. He implied a somewhat sleazy motivation. It is going slightly beyond what is strictly necessary to impute improper motives to those who have been putting forward these proposals since August 1982. There has been singularly little criticism of these proposals, either from the depositors or from the commercial rivals of the Trustee Savings bank Scotland, or from anyone who might have been thought to be adversely affected by the proposals.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I did not say that the motivation of those who proposed this matter was in any way sleazy. I said that once the matter had been proposed and difficulties arose, what happened thereafter might be subject to close scrutiny.
      Mr. Maclennan: The House has been subjecting this Bill to ever closer scrutiny, and no doubt will properly continue to do so for a little time yet. What has come out at this late stage in the Bill is that the proposed shape of the new bank is thought in some way to provide less protection for depositors than previously existed.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has taken a close interest on the Opposition side of the House in this matter for a long time. He complained that there might be under-representation in the new structure because only 10 per cent. of the depositors will be in the shareholding body. But that will be 10 per cent. more than has been represented in management decisions or in the decision-making process of the bank at any stage in its history. It is at least plausible to argue that the principal concern of the trustees in moving towards this new shape for the bank is the interests of the depositors. One must assume from their silence that the depositors have consented to what has been done. Over a period of three years, they have had plenty of opportunity to raise this matter.
      130
      For the bank to be organised as a public limited company would be in the interests of depositors. The bank has increasingly become comparable to a clearing bank and has ceased to be primarily a savings institution. It operates in the hight street like other banks and operates accounts that can be drawn upon. I doubt whether depositors really view it as being, in important respects, very different from, shall we say, the Royal bank or the Bank of Scotland. The operations have become very difficult to distinguish for the ordinary depositor who uses the services of the bank.
      These facts have been somewhat lost sight of in the understandable and wholly legitimate controversy that has arisen about whether the Trustee Savings bank Scotland should be operated as a Scottish bank in Scotland with all the benefits that might bring to a strenghtened Scottish financial sector. There was a singular lack of criticism from those who have been concerned to see some strengthening of the Scottish financial sector. I suppose that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross believes that that is because they were in some way competitors and might not be interested in making that case. There were certainly others who, for political or other motives, might have thought it appropriate to boost the case for the independence of the Trustee Savings bank.
      I need not go over the facts about the strength of the Trustee Savings bank Scotland. The statistics were cited by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) earlier in the debate. It is perfectly clear that the Trustee Savings bank Scotland is by far the strongest part of the whole trustee savings bank coterie. It could have stood on its own feet and I regret that is not what was proposed, because it would have been extremely sensible and we would have given it our support. They said to the Government, "Let us join this new United Kingdom organisation and let us do so without any protection of the separate Scottish interest." That was the point that the Bill had reached when the hon. Member for Dundee, East moved his famous amendment. There are many more hon. Members in the Chamber tonight than there were on that occasion. To give the hon. Gentleman credit, it must be said that he has taken a consistent line on the matter and has pushed the issue further.
      11.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East had only 29 votes for his amendment and the matter appeared to have been lost. It was revived only when my noble Friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved an amendment in another place that was given all-party backing, including support from the Labour party in the unexpected person of Lord Stoddart of Swindon and reluctant support from Lord Ross of Marnock. Even at that late stage, they sought to extract a new structure for the Scottish side of the TSB.
      It was too late to rewrite the Bill. It would have been desirable for TSB Scotland to be established separately, and that could have been done, but it was not open to another place to unravel the Bill. The political reality was that the Government, with their substantial majority in this House, could have overridden any amendment and left the Bill in its original form. It would have had the wholehearted support of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in that. He was utterly contemptuous of the amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee, East and he

      131
      suggested that the hon. Gentleman knew nothing about Scottish banking. Events have proved the hon. Member for Dumfries wrong.
      The agreement that followed consideration of the Bill in another place has resulted in some important changes. I hope that the Minister will say something about the extent to which those changes can be made to stick. They are consensual and are not written into the Bill. They appear to rest on the somewhat shaky foundations of the articles of association of the new company.
      However, the changes that were agreed and are set out in Sir John Read's letter are not insubstantial. They show that it is at least the present intention of the TSB to establish a separate Scottish management, located in Scotland and with its registered headquarters in Scotland. The board will appoint its own members and they will not be appointed by the central board in London, although the members will be subject to the board's approval. There will also be a right of representation on the main board.
      The provision that 75 per cent. of the Scottish board should be resident in Scotland is not a nugatory provision. It is a practical way of ensuring that the management of the board remains in Scotland.
      Like the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, I am interested in the matters that are to be considered in the court in Scotland. However, whatever the findings, proceedings have begun too late. There can be no question of the legislative process being held up by that late decision to raise these issues in the court. The very tardiness with which that matter has been pursued raises the question whether the issues are so pressing and whether there is the threat to depositors' interests that is suggested may be implicit in what is being done, or in the action that is being recommended by the trustees.
      I do not feel that Sir John Read has proposed an ideal compromise and I do not regard the guarantees as copper-bottomed. However, at this late stage I do not think that there is an alternative to accepting them. They go a great deal further than the Scottish Members were prepared to go prior to the vote in another place. which was an extremely valuable step in stopping the Bill reaching the statute book without effective consideration of what might be done to safeguard the Scottish dimension of the bank.
      The Bill will be seen to have justified the scrutiny role of another place. Those who would wish to see that role eliminated might think fit to read the reports of its debates and consider how effective it has been.
      The Government have, for the most part, tried to play the part of an honest broker. When it came to the crunch, I am glad that they were prepared to put some pressure upon Sir John and his colleagues to produce an end result which, though far short of what we would have wished originally, is a great deal better than the Bill as it first appeared before us. I regret very much that TSB Scotland will not, in its new life, be continuing entirely on its Scottish feet.
      Mr. Archie Kirkwood: I am pleased to be able to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I accept entirely the analysis that he has deployed, but I shall take the issue to a slightly more fundamental level.
      132
      It is true that the management of the TSB, in its own terms and within its own lights, has acted perfectly properly. It has acted efficiently and prospered in the best interests of the business as it sees them. The Government have probably acted according to their best lights as an honest broker in a difficult situation in their promotion of the Bill. The scrutiny that was given to the Bill in this place and in another place has revealed some difficulties which some of us—I include myself in the number—did not anticipate would emerge. From an operational. pragmatic and commercial point of view, everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland was right, but I am deeply uneasy about the fundamental principles of Scotts law that are at stake.
      I followed carefully the interesting speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). First, a trustee savings bank is an unusual institution, and that presents us with a difficulty. If the Government had thought more carefully about that, they may have prevented us from having to face the problem before us.
      The duty placed on the trustees of the original TSB institutions was totally different from that described by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross. My interpretation of their duty is that it was to promote savings, no more and no less. In other words, in small rural areas and in the high streets of small Scottish towns they tried to engender the ethic of thrift. If that was their function, and if they had no similiarity to a company limited by shares under the Companies Act, they were—and, therefore, still are—in a unique position. They do not have a joint stock bank structure, which is what the Bill sets out to achieve. The difference is that the trustees had the duty to promote savings, whereas a joint stock bank is established to make profit for the benefit of the shareholders. The two are totally different and no amount of legislative magic can translate the TSB into a joint stock banking company without considering who owns the assets of between £600 million and £700 million.
      The bank has plans to continue, and I have no doubt that the TSB would prosper, if it were permitted to continue as it is. The depositors would benefit from that. While I would not go all the way with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), especially in some of the language that he used, there is a danger that the House may be asked to put constitutional clothing on what is, in effect, an act of appropriation of the worst sort. That makes me uneasy about the whole process.
      A small number of depositors have argued for a greater say, but I should have been happier if more of them had backed up the lead that was given by some of their number. While, therefore, the issue can be considered on a commercial or organisation level, on the one hand, it can be considered on a political level, on the other. It can be considered on the level of decentralisation and devolution to Scotland in terms of the amendment, and I join those who say that there is a cogent argument to be made for decentralising the bank and making it an exclusively Scottish institution—a point that I made on Report.
      Now that the Government have had time to look at all the ramifications, and now that the Minister has heard the legal opinion, I should be interested to know the Government's attitude, although I have been a solicitor for long enough to know that one should not believe everything in an opinion. What is the Government's

      133
      solution to how to bridge the gap between the present association and the joint stock bank being created by the Bill?
      12 midnight
      My only suggestion—and I realise that it is fraught with practical difficulties—is that some way, somehow, the depositors' opinion must be tested. They must be brought into the process. I would feel deeply restive and uneasy going through the Lobbies to support a measure with which in all other respects I agree, but where the legal questions are of fundamental importance to me as a Scots lawyer.
      Mr. Craigen: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and my amendment which deals specifically with consultation with the depositors?
      Mr. Kirkwood: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and he has made one or two perceptive speeches on this matter. I want to hear the Minister before I decide how to vote. I support the hon. Gentleman's case, but I want the Government to address themselves to the fundamental legal question about the ownership of the assets of the bank.
      Mr. Peter Pike: I have spoken during every stage of the Bill. Unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who asked what could be done at this late stage, I believe that the Government could withdraw the Bill. Quite simply, irrespective of whether the Government accept the Lords amendment or whether any of the amendments being debated are carried. I believe that we will still be left with a bad Bill. It would be best if the Government withdrew the Bill.
      The advertisements of the TSB on television show what it has achieved, so it is hard to believe that it desperately needs the Bill to be passed now. We should allow more time for more thought and come back with a better Bill next year. We should not speed through the Bill when the TSB advertisements show its success over recent years. Rapid progress is not essential. Unlike other privatisations, the Government have no financial gain from this Bill. Any money resulting from the sale of shares will remain with the TSB.
      We do not have to accept the proposals for Scotland. We should wait to see what is determined in the court. The amendments on consultation are exceptionally important. Unless the TSB Scotland is very different from the English regional banks, there has not been any consultation with its customers. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland mentioned that the Bill has been under discussion for three years. Therefore, when they have been sending statements to customers, I cannot understand why the TSB in Scotland or any of the regions has not carried out a consultation exercise and informed its customers of its proposals and why it wants to carry them out, and sought their views.
      Customers and depositors should be able to express their view. Tomorrow the court will decide whom the trustees represent. If the trustees are acting in the best interests of depositors, they should have the confidence to consult them and see what they want to do.
      I support the amendment to the Lords amendment. If it is not accepted I shall support several other amendments,
      134
      but the best solution is for the Government to withdraw the Bill to allow proper consultation. The Government are acting as agent, so the legislation is not essential to them. Let the Government withdraw the legislation. Let us give the matter a year's thought and introduce a better Bill in the next Session.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): Any Minister called upon to take through the House a Bill relating to a body with no owners of its assets has a formidable task. I am convinced that the Government were right to think most carefully about the basis on which they should legislate. Throughout proceedings I have tried to keep in mind the origins of my family in the manse and to have a generous, liberal-minded approach, particularly to the Scottish question.
      The Scottish question has two parts. The first is the question of independence and the operation of TSB Scotland as a bank with a Scottish identity managed and run in Scotland. The second question is about the constitution, the way in which that bank should be accountable and whether depositors should have a different constitutional position. The Lords amendments are also relevant.
      Before embarking upon the legislation, the Government considered the legal position carefully. We were satisfied that there was no element of expropriation in the Bill. The contents of Mr. Murray's opinion were known to us at all material times. I am advised that Mr. Murray's opinion was not the only opinion obtained by the trustees of the Scottish trustee savings banks. Before proposals were discussed with the Government, they had considered advice. It would be wrong for us to advise the House to delay consideration of the measure pending the outcome of an action which is taking place at a late stage in the Bill's progress.
      Mr. Dewar: There was an intervention from the Government Benches below the Gangway from a certain solicitor. Perhaps I should have said—although I do not think it amounts to an interest—that I am a partner in a law firm which no doubt on occasion has contact with the Trustee Savings bank.
      Will the Minister say a word or two about the effect of an interdict, if there were to be such a happening in the courts, based upon a finding that ownership rested with the depositors? What would be the impact of that and what would be the effect on the Government's plans?
      Mr. Stewart: If the pursuer—I understand that is the correct term for an appellant in a Scottish court—in this case, contrary to the advice that the Government have received, were to succeed in obtaining a judgment against the trustees of TSB Scotland, we would, of course, consider our subsequent action in the light of that judgment. [Interruption.] As I have already said, it would be wrong for us to defer consideration of the Bill at this stage.
      Mr. Eric Cockeram: May I help my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the House? A similar occurrence took place about there years ago during the passage of a Bill of considerably greater constitutional significance than this one—the Canada Bill. An action was started very late in the courts in an attempt to delay the Bill. The Lord Chancellor in another place ruled that Parliament should not—indeed, could not—have its

      135
      business put aside because a citizen or a group of citizens had started an action in the courts, and that Parliament must proceed with its business. Furthermore, he ruled that it would be wrong for Parliament to bow to such actions. Otherwise, any citizen or group of citizens could delay Parliament's business on any Bill passing through the House.
      Mr. Stewart: That is a helpful contribution. [Interruption.] I am surprised that Opposition Members should find amusement in such sensible comments as I have made. I suppose they would wish me to say that the Government would not consider their subsequent action in the light of such a judgment.
      Mr. Craigen: Returning to the assurance that the Minister gave earlier as to what would happen if the declarator were to fall the other way and not the way that the Government expect, will he give an assurance that the Bill will not be sent for Royal Assent until the matter of the court judgment is resolved?
      Mr. Stewart: I do not propose to give any specific assurances about the outcome of any action which has not yet been heard. It would be irresponsible of me to do so. I have given the House a reasonable assurance on the point raised with me by the hon. Gentleman. I gave way to him because of the long and close interest that he has had in the Bill. I compliment him on the consistency with which he has put his case. But I think that he and all hon. Members should recognise that there has been a very long period during which it has been open to any depositor to challenge the TSBs on the point of ownership.
      The present legal framework of the TSBs goes back to the Labour Government's Trustee Savings Bank Act 1976. The current proposals which are now contained in the Bill were first put forward three years ago in a statement by the TSBs which received extensive press coverage and which was reflected in the annual report of each TSB at that time and subsequently. Details were then spelt out in the Government's own White Paper last December, and the Bill has proceeded through its various stages in the Commons and in another place during the past six months. At no point during that time did any depositor see fit to challenge the legal basis on which the proposals were made, and we consider the present action to be misconceived.
      Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the TSB movement made no attempt to contact its depositors to tell them what was happening, let alone to find out whether they would approve such changes?
      12.15 am
      Mr. Stewart: I am coming to the matter of consultation with the TSB depositors, and I shall take account of the hon. Gentleman's point.
      The difficulty with the TSB's constitutional position is that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, the depositors are not the owners. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said that the TSB is not strictly mutual. In fact, it is not mutual at all. Had it been mutual, the task of producing a Bill for the future of the TSBs would have been a great deal easier. No legal ownership makes it extremely complicated.
      The question of depositors being consulted lies at the heart of the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for
      136
      Dundee, East and by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). In 1976, the Government introduced a provision that 25 per cent. of the trustees of each TSB should be elected by the depositors. Those elections took place, but in almost every case they were not contested. Between 1976 and last year, only two elections were contested. In both cases, the same person contested the elections, and was heavily defeated. That does not seem to demonstrate a great fever of depositor interest in the conduct of the TSBs. In many ways, it would have been healthier if more depositors had taken the opportunity of putting forward and supporting candidates, but in 1976 it was felt that this was a means of allowing some form of participation by the depositors. In practice, the depositors have greeted that provision with comprehensive apathy. That is not a basis on which we could say that the constitutional arrangements for the TSBs should be overturned or qualified in a way that would suddenly give the depositors a decisive part to play by a ballot, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East proposed, or by some other means of consultation.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Under the provisions of the 1976 Act no one has ever invited me as a depositor to vote for a person who wished to be a trustee. Surely I am not expected to put forward my own candidates and propose my own ballot. As a depositor, I should have been asked. I assure my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary that I have not been asked, and I do not know of any other depositor who ever has been.
      Mr. Stewart: I do not know whether all the depositors in TSBs in Scotland are as active and enthusiastic as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). I understood that he had a deposit of £2·68, which he had allowed to sit in the TSB without paying much attention to it. Had he gone to the TSB, he would have seen that notices are put up in the branches about elections. Had he been a keen depositor, he would have asked for a copy of the TSB's annual report and accounts and would have found full details of all these proposals. I do not want to point the finger only at my hon. and learned Friend, because that would be unfair. I was about to say that there are a million or more people like my hon. and learned Friend, but perhaps that would not be credible, and I should say that there are a million or more depositors with TSB Scotland, who are like my hon. and learned Friend in that they have taken no part in the operation and activities of the TSB with which they deposit their money. Faced with such a lack of enthusiasm from depositors, it would not be right at this late stage to introduce half-baked procedures for consultation with depositors who have not taken advantage of the statutory provisions, which were specifically inserted into the 1976 legislation to give them an opportunity to express their opinions.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the somewhat nonchalant way in which the Minister dismissed his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), will he explain where in his argument there is anything consistent with the Government's recent attitude to trade union ballots?
      Mr. Stewart: There is a slight difference between trade unions and TSBs, which resides in the fact that trade unions have members and TSBs do not. Earlier I explained

      137
      how difficult it was to deal with a body which had no ownership or members, because it was not a mutual organisation. TSBs are certainly not constitutionally like trade unions.
      I said that the question related to two aspects. The second is that, of the Scottish identity of TSB Scotland. The hon. Member for Dundee, East said that if we did not reject the Lords amendment, we would allow TSB Scotland to continue a separate existence, but that is exactly the opposite of the case. The Bill would then repeal the existing legislation under which TSB Scotland is constituted, and would not provide for it under the new legislation. TSB Scotland would, therefore, have no position in law, be unable to gain recognition as a bank, and presumably, therefore, have to cease business.
      The Government have followed a much more constructive approach. Following the proceedings in another place we have endeavoured to ensure that in its final form the Bill will reflect the interests of the TSBs—the management and depositors—be soundly based in law, and reasonably take account of the anxieties expressed in Parliament during the Bill's passage. That is why amendments (b), (c) and (d) seek to introduce a specific provision—the concept of eligibility to succeed—whereby a separate new banking company will be registered in each territory and will take over the assets and business of the previous TSB in that country or territory.
      The fact that we must move to disagree with the Lords amendment, and that I must suggest that these amendments should replace it, is purely because of the procedure in another place which meant that these amendments could not technically be tabled there on Third Reading. Therefore, they must be considered by this House.
      In addition to the amendment that makes it plain that successor banks will have a separate identity closely related to their country, many hon. Members have drawn attention to the contents of Sir John Read's letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is printed in the Official Report of 4 July. We should recall the undertakings given in that letter: first, that the head office and registered office of each bank should be in its country; secondly, that each bank's board should appoint its members and that they should not be London nominees; thirdly, that 75 per cent. of the directors should be normally resident in that country; fourthly, that the chairman and chief executive of the banks in England and Scotland should be appointed to the group board; and, finally, and importantly, that the holding company should not be able to reduce the net worth or set the dividend policy of the subsidiary banks without the agreement of two thirds of their directors.
      As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, they are important changes. He said that they were not all he wanted, but he fairly recognised that they constituted an important safeguard for the Scottish identity of TSB Scotland in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked how independent the bank would be. All that I can say is that, whereas at present the trustees of any bank can merge it with another without an Act of Parliament, after the Bill is passed they could not do so without returning to the House with a private Bill. If this evening's proceedings are anything to go by, they might have great difficulty in gaining the approval of the House.
      Mr. Craigen: The Minister mentioned depositor apathy in elections. Will he spell out what accountability there will be in the elections by new shareholders of the directors of banks?
      Mr. Stewart: The new shareholders will have a direct say in the nomination and re-election of directors in the group parent bank. They will have no such say in relation to the subsidiaries. It is correct to say that the boards of the subsidiaries will appoint further directors in due course, but that is the normal pattern with subsidiary companies in groups. In this case, there will be greater assurance of the independence of those boards because of the provisions that I have just mentioned. It will be impossible for the parent company to nominate directors to the subsidiary boards of TSB Scotland or any other TSB. Those are important changes.
      I accept fully that, although the amendments passed in the other place caused extensive reconsideration, they have resulted in important improvements in the basis on which the Bill will proceed. I willingly acknowledge that all those who have put forward ideas on Scottish independence have played their part in bringing that about. I hope that most hon. Members will accept that, having reached this stage, the Bill reflects most of the concerns that were expressed during its passage. Therefore, I hope that they will support the Government's amendments.
      Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I have felt like an intruder during much of the debate, because despite the way in which some people interpret my surname, I have no connection with Scotland—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I have connections with a better place.
      The Minister referred to the legal position, and insisted that there was no need to delay the Bill pending the legal action. One can understand his point. However, it was entirely unsatisfactory to say that, if the judgment went against the Government, he would merely consider subsequent amendment. He did not consider the possibility that if the judgment went against the Government, it would mean that the depositors' accounts had been expropriated. Therefore, the Government would have to consider the matter seriously and the Bill would not receive its Royal Assent.
      12.30 am
      Secondly, the Minister referred to the letter from the chairman, which was published in the Official Report of 4 July. Once again, we find that some of the main commitments are in the articles of association. We had to make the point frequently in discussion of the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report that those articles of association could be changed, provided that 51 per cent. of the shareholders agreed. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out at one stage, given that shareholders are to be limited by the articles of association to 50 per cent., one need only envisage 11 institutions which hold 5 per cent. of the shares getting together to be able to change the articles of association.
      Thirdly, the Minister said that the depositors were not owners and therefore should not be consulted. Even so, that does not give a strong enough reason for refusing consultation because the depositors, after all, occupy rather a special position as regards the TSB Scotland. If one in four in Scotland are depositors with the TSB Scotland, this should be an important consideration.

      139
      In all the debates, we have emphasised very much the special character of the TSB in Scotland. While one might say that the depositors are not owners and therefore have no right to be consulted, if we accepted the Minister's argument, we could still go on to say that, although they may have no legal right to be consulted, it would be quite in keeping with the whole tradition of the TSB Scotland to consult them.
      Finally, the Minister accused the depositors of comprehensive apathy, and gave that as a reason for not allowing them to be consulted at this important stage of the change in status, however ill-defined, of the TSB, and particularly of the TSB Scotland. Like Viscount Whitelaw, the Minister seems to believe that one should not go round the country stirring up what he is pleased to call apathy. The Opposition believe that it would be quite proper to stir up the depositors' apathy on this occasion, and to allow them to be consulted before this important change takes place.
      The Minister's replies have been very weak, and he has not given us any of the guarantees which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) requested. We shall vote accordingly.
      Mr. Wilson: With regard to the legal side, as the Minister put it, I have rarely come across such a brazen attitude as that adopted by the Minister. He discards an opinion which states that the ownership of the bank lies with the depositors. He says that the Government took other legal advice, and has given no indication of what that might be. I find that remarkable.
      In relation to the amendment, he has not convinced me that the provisions are other than minimal, and they will do very little to safeguard the independence of the Trustee Savings bank.
      In summary, there has been breach of trust, in my opinion. There has also been breach of ownership, in my opinion. Having heard the Minister, I think that there has been a breach of the Government's credibility.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 139.

      Division No. 275]

      [12.34 am

      AYES

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Ewing, Harry

      Beith, A. J.

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Foster, Derek

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

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hardy, Peter

      Caborn, Richard

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Haynes, Frank

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Clarke, Thomas

      Home Robertson, John

      Clay, Robert

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kennedy, Charles

      Craigen, J. M.

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McCartney, Hugh

      Dalyell, Tam

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dewar, Donald

      McKelvey, William

      Dixon, Donald

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dormand, Jack

      McTaggart, Robert

      Eadie, Alex

      McWilliam, John

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      140

      Maxton, John

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michie, William

      Snape, Peter

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Strang, Gavin

      Parry, Robert

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Patchett, Terry

      Wainwright, R.

      Pike, Peter

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Prescott, John

      Mr. Gordon Wilson and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

      Robertson, George

      Rowlands, Ted

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Ancram, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Merchant, Piers

      Bellingham, Henry

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Benyon, William

      Moate, Roger

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Blackburn, John

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Murphy, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter

      Neale, Gerrard

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Neubert, Michael

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Bright, Graham

      Normanton, Tom

      Brinton, Tim

      Norris, Steven

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Osborn, Sir John

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Browne, John

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Budgen, Nick

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Burt, Alistair

      Pollock, Alexander

      Butterfill, John

      Portillo, Michael

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

      Powley, John

      Cash, William

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Raffan, Keith

      Chope, Christopher

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Cockeram, Eric

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Coombs, Simon

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Cope, John

      Rowe, Andrew

      Couchman, James

      Ryder, Richard

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Dover, Den

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Dunn, Robert

      Sims, Roger

      Dykes, Hugh

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Eggar, Tim

      Spencer, Derek

      Evennett, David

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Fallon, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Favell, Anthony

      Stern, Michael

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Gregory, Conal

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Henderson, Barry

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Sumberg, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Knowles, Michael

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Lightbown, David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lilley, Peter

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Tracey, Richard

      Lord, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Maclean, David John

      Waddington, David

      Madel, David

      Walden, George

      Major, John

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Marlow, Antony

      Waller, Gary

      Mather, Carol

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      141

      Warren, Kenneth

      Yeo, Tim

      Wheeler, John

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Wilkinson, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Tony Durant.

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wood, Timothy

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 57.

      Division No. 276]

      [12.45 am

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Major, John

      Ancram, Michael

      Marlow, Antony

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Mather, Carol

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Bellingham, Henry

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Benyon, William

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Merchant, Piers

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Blackburn, John

      Moate, Roger

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Bright, Graham

      Neale, Gerrard

      Brinton, Tim

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Normanton, Tom

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Norris, Steven

      Browne, John

      Osborn, Sir John

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Budgen, Nick

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Burt, Alistair

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Butterfill, John

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

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

      Pollock, Alexander

      Cash, William

      Portillo, Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Powley, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

      Raffan, Keith

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Cockeram, Eric

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Coombs, Simon

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Cope, John

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Couchman, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Rowe, Andrew

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Dover, Den

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Dunn, Robert

      Sims, Roger

      Durant, Tony

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Spencer, Derek

      Eggar, Tim

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Evennett, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fallon, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Favell, Anthony

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Gregory. Conal

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Henderson, Barry

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hind, Kenneth

      Sumberg, David

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Knowles, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Lang, Ian

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Lilley, Peter

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Waddington, David

      Lord, Michael

      Walden, George

      Maclean, David John

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Madel, David

      Waller, Gary

      142

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Wood, Timothy

      Warren, Kenneth

      Yeo, Tim

      Wheeler, John

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Wilkinson, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Wolfson, Mark

      NOES

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Home Robertson, John

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

      McCartney, Hugh

      Buchan, Norman

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Caborn, Richard

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      McKelvey, William

      Clarke, Thomas

      McTaggart, Robert

      Clay, Robert

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Michie, William

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Craigen, J. M.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Parry, Robert

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Patchett, Terry

      Dewar, Donald

      Pike, Peter

      Dixon, Donald

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Dormand, Jack

      Prescott, John

      Eadie, Alex

      Robertson, George

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Ewing, Harry

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fatchett, Derek

      Snape, Peter

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Fisher, Mark

      Strang, Gavin

      Foster, Derek

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Wilson, Gordon

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Hardy, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Mr. John McWilliam and Mr. John Maxton.

      Haynes, Frank

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 disagreed to: (b), in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'and' to end of line 13 and insert 'eligible to succeed them'.
      (c), in page 2, line 30, after 'business', insert
      'and eligible to succeed it'.
      (d), in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
      '() For a company to be "eligible to succeed" an existing bank it must have been, immediately before the vesting day, a subsidiary of the Central Board or the existing holding company and it must—

      (a) in the case of the company which is to succeed the existing bank for England and Wales, be registered (and accordingly have its registered office) in England and Wales;

      (b) in the case of the company which is to succeed the existing bank for Scotland, be registered (and accordingly have its registered office) in Scotland;

      (c) in the case of the company which is to succeed the existing bank for Northern Ireland, be registered (and accordingly have its registered office) in Northern Ireland; and

      (d) in the case of the company which is to succeed the existing bank for the Channel Islands, be incorporated (and accordingly have its registered office) in any of the Channel Islands.'.—[Mr. Ian Stewart.]

      Lords amendment No. 2: after clause 1, insert the following new clause—Share holdings for deposit holders and employees—
      ". From the vesting day 25 per cent, of the shares in the TSB Group shall be held in trust for holders of deposits in the TSB Group and employees of the TSB Group, the trustees being elected annually in equal numbers by appropriate Associations of both groups."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ian Stewart.]
      Dr. McDonald: The point of principle involved in the amendment was debated on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. We support the Lords amendment which proposes that, in order to preserve the traditional character of the TSB, 25 per cent. of shares should be assigned to depositors and employees.
      The employees are particularly keen that the amendment should be accepted, because it would give them more weight in their negotiations with the employers. Throughout the discussions about the future of the TSB, the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union has pressed for the flotation of shares to resemble the British Telecom flotation in which a proportion of shares were set aside for employees.
      The objection from the TSB and the Government is that the bank hopes to get more than 1 million shareholders, but that seems to be an arbitrarily selected figure and a piece of window-dressing by the TSB management to make its flotation and plans for the future of the bank look more attractive to the Government. We need not take that figure seriously.
      On Report we debated an amendment proposing that 50 per cent. of shares should be set aside for staff and depositors. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that he would
      "like to see a substantial proportion of the shares of the issue being so allocated".—[Official Report, 20 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 1129.]
      It seems to us that 25 per cent. is a substantial proportion and, in view of the Economic Secretary's comment, the Lords amendment should be accepted.
      Mr. Kirkwood: Having lost the earlier argument on the ownership of the TSB, we should note that an amendment calling for 49 per cent. of shares to be assigned in the manner proposed by Lords amendment No. 2 was moved by my noble Friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. That proposed proportion of ownership having been lost, my noble Friend Lord Banks moved an amendment that proposed 25 per cent. ownership which was tested and fell, but it is wrong for the Government to overturn the amendment which was successfully moved by Lord Banks.
      1 am
      The Government are pressing for wider participation and there is a case for a much broader basis of ownership than the Bill would provide without the amendment. All that it is offering is priority for depositors and staff in the purchase of shares. The amendment would leave 25 per cent. in trust for depositors and employees, with 12·5 per cent. each.
      The Minister, Lord Gowrie, considered some objections against the amendment and raised them, but they were all dealt with effectively by Lord Banks when he spoke of the difficulties that were perceived by the Government in having a structure that provided for 25 per cent. to be in trust for depositors and staff. It was made clear in another place that it is possible for commercial operations to survive and prosper with a proportion of a company's shares held in such a way. The John Lewis partnership was cited as an example, where 100 per cent. of the shares are held by employees. That is a very
      144
      successful commercial operation and there is no reason why a similar procedure should not operate for depositors, especially in an organisation with the tradition of the TSB.
      A series of further questions were put to Lord Banks in another place and they were all dealt with effectively and I do not believe that the Government have a case. It is wrong for them to deny the staff and depositors an element of future interest in the TSB as a whole. It is wrong also for the Government to seek to overturn the amendment that was made in another place.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has referred to the debates that took place in another place. I do not think that we need to rehearse all the arguments again. He referred to the John Lewis partnership, which has a trust for 30,000 staff. There is a difference here, because we are talking about many millions of depositors.
      The central question is whether the TSBs should be mutuals or in Companies Act form. I do not believe that there should be a half-way house, a sort of pseudo mutuality, for part of the capital of the TSBs. If 25 per cent. of the capital were put in trust in the way that is proposed, in addition to the 5 per cent. for charities, that would create a block of 30 per cent. of the share capital, which would dominate the direct shareholding of depositors and other small shareholders. It would cut across the intention of the TSBs to obtain a large number of depositors and other small shareholders. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) poured scorn on the figure of 1 million, but that is the TSB's objective. If we were to accept the Lords amendment, we would make it much more difficult for the TSBs to achieve their goal.
      There are great difficulties in practical terms. The two reasons most strongly in favour of a Companies Act constitution are, first, the need for accountability to shareholders, which would be overborne by the combination of the charity holding and the 25 per cent. depositor trust, and secondly, and more importantly perhaps, access to capital. If 30 per cent. of the capital were held in a restricted way, it would be impossible to raise capital from the other shareholders without giving the same increase in capital to the trust, and the trust would not have sufficient resources to respond. It would seriously hamper the activities of the TSBs without giving them the other compensating advantages of a different structure.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 62.

      Division No. 277]

      [1.05 am

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Browne, John

      Ancram, Michael

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Burt, Alistair

      Benyon, William

      Butterfill, John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

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

      Blackburn, John

      Cash, William

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Bright, Graham

      Coombs, Simon

      Brinton, Tim

      Cope, John

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Couchman, James

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      145

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Powley, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Dover, Den

      Raffan, Keith

      Dunn, Robert

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Eggar, Tim

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Evennett, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Fallon, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Favell, Anthony

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Gregory, Conal

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Henderson, Barry

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Sims, Roger

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Spencer, Derek

      Lang, Ian

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stern, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Lilley, Peter

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lord, Michael

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Maclean, David John

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Marlow, Antony

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mather, Carol

      Sumberg, David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Waddington, David

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Walden, George

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Waller, Gary

      Murphy, Christopher

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Neubert, Michael

      Wheeler, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wilkinson, John

      Normanton, Tom

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Norris, Steven

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Osborn, Sir John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wood, Timothy

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Yeo, Tim

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pollock, Alexander

      Mr. John Major and Mr. Archie Hamilton.

      Portillo, Michael

      NOES

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      146

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

      Kennedy, Charles

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Buchan, Norman

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Caborn, Richard

      McCartney, Hugh

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Clarke, Thomas

      McKelvey, William

      Clay, Robert

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      McTaggart, Robert

      Craigen, J. M.

      McWilliam, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Maxton, John

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Dewar, Donald

      Michie, William

      Dixon, Donald

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dormand, Jack

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Eadie, Alex

      O'Neill, Martin

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Parry, Robert

      Ewing, Harry

      Patchett, Terry

      Fatchett, Derek

      Pike, Peter

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Fisher, Mark

      Robertson, George

      Foster, Derek

      Rowlands, Ted

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hardy, Peter

      Strang, Gavin

      Haynes, Frank

      Thompson, J, (Wansbeck)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Home Robertson, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Mr. A. J. Beith and

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. Gordon Wilson.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos 3 to 8 agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Barry Henderson, Mr. John Major, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Ian Stewart; Three be the quorum.—[Mr. Ian Stewart.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

    EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Nicholas Soames be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and Mr. William Cash be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Durant.]

  Teachers (Pay)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
  1.17 am
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the current teachers' pay dispute. I am a former polytechnic lecturer, married to a college lecturer who comes from a family of teachers, so the continuation of the pay dispute causes me concern. It must be in our interests to create the best education system possible. One of the ways to do that is to attract to the teaching profession the best qualified and most able teachers to teach our children.
  The profession must be presented as an attractive vocation. Little can be more important if we are to nurture and develop the seed corn of tomorrow's Britain. The future is in our hands. We must have the best teachers available at our disposal.
  We must consider the problem in the light of the society that we want for the future. As information technology and technology generally advances we shall need to provide people with higher qualifications who can cope with the jobs created by that technology.
  We shall see a society in which there will be fewer hours of work, in which people will retire earlier, and in which they will stay at school longer. They will have to learn at school how to cope with the increased leisure that such a society will provide.
  The second function of the future education system will be to provide the necessary training for the skills that will be required for the jobs of the future. We are effectively facing a social revolution, and the main function of the education system will be to enable people to adjust to it. It is for that reason that many of us in this House are very concerned to get the best teachers that we possibly can.
  The main reason for the present teaching dispute is the reduction since 1979 by about 1 million of the number of children in our schools. It has had a number of important effects on the teaching profession. The number of posts available for promotion is becoming much more limited. A considerable number of teachers are now stuck on scales 1 and 2. There is no movement and very few senior teacher posts are being created.
  Would-be teachers are being required to stay at school for an extra two years to do A-levels, to take degree courses and B.Ed. courses. Many of the honours graduates go on to obtain teaching certificates. They do not go into a job until they are 21 or 22. Those extra years at school or university have to be rewarded by proper terms and conditions of service and a decent salary when they enter the teaching profession. This House should help towards the creation of attractive terms and conditions for the teachers who come into our schools.
  At the age of 21 or 22, on a salary of £8,500 at the top of scale 1, and with very little chance of promotion, the job of a teacher is not a very attractive proposition. A scale 1 or 2 teacher today is earning the average wage, not of an accountant, lawyer or bank manager; his wages are on a par with those of a gas fitter, deck hands on ships, crane drivers and machine minders. In some cases, people in those other occupations are doing financially better than our teachers.
  The top of the pay scale of a head teacher in a primary school is about £13,500. That teacher can be responsible
  148
  for upwards of 300 primary schoolchildren between the ages of five and 11. The pay scale is in no way commensurate with the responsibility that a head teacher carries.
  In secondary education, £22,500 is the maximum for head teachers with 2,000 pupils, including fairly large sixth forms. Their pay is not commensurate with that of industrial managers, senior officers in the Army and senior officials in local government and central government. Today on page 3 The Times pointed out that, over the past ten years, the wage levels of head teachers in secondary schools have been severely eroded compared with those other posts. Local education authorities have reduced staff levels as schools have shrunk.
  Morale is at an all-time record low. What can we do to deal with this? The symptoms have been the annual pay round and the inevitable arguments about pay levels, followed by industrial action and arbitration. I doubt whether many hon. Members agree with the teachers' industrial action. I reject it. There can be no forgiveness for those teachers who put children's education in danger. Many of us understand the frustration that leads teachers to take industrial action, but, if the teaching profession is to prove its dedication and professionalism, it will not be done by acting in this way. I and many of my colleagues have pointed out to teachers that, if they want to improve their terms and conditions, by acting in this way they are not impressing those whom they need to influence—the parents, Members of Parliament and the Government. They are going down the wrong road.
  We must see an end to the annual pay round and the disputes cycle. In an early-day motion I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) urged all parties in the dispute to negotiate in a spirit of goodwill for a long-term solution.
  Some of those who represent the teachers at high levels, especially in certain unions, do not negotiate in a spirit of good will. This has been shown by offers by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to meet the union leaders. They refused to negotiate over the 1986–87 pay settlement, even though in October we shall be finalising the rate support grant for that financial year. Many Conservative Members must suspect that the leaders of certain trade unions, in the interests perhaps of the main Opposition party, are using the dispute to discredit the Government. They are interested, not in the profession as a whole, but in making political points. Perhaps Mr. Jarvis and some of the leaders of the NUT at national level have been reading Trotsky carefully and taking to heart his advice that demands should be made on the capitalist system which it is known it cannot meet. Teachers would do well to look at the motives of some of the union leadership.
  I and the majority of my colleagues do not believe that the teaching profession is full of Left-wing activists. Teachers as a whole are eminently sensible people who realise the position that they are in. They want to settle the matter. We should be giving them the opportunity to do so. We should be talking about teachers in the way that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and other Ministers talks about the police and the way that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services talks about nurses, to emphasise the value of the teaching profession to the nation and to make it clear that we support that attitude and value them as a section of the community.

  149
  It is important for Conservative Members and the Government to make teachers realise that we care about their future and the future of education. It may be worth mentioning that the Opposition Benches are empty, and that the 32 Labour Members who are members of the National Union of Teachers are conspicuous by their absence, together with alliance Members, who have constantly wooed teachers. Where are they tonight? Not one is present.
  In future we must look for a long-term solution. We must see an end to the annual pay round and its associated disputes because not only teachers and parents, but everyone, is fed up with it, and want it ended. To end it, our approach to the problem must be realistic. Teachers must realise that although they have a great deal of support and sympathy for their case in the House, the dispute must be settled in a climate of economic reality. They must realise that states are like individuals in that there are cash limits on what they can afford.
  I advocate that any settlement must include the assessment of teachers' performance. I appreciate that that is disputed, but from my conversations with teachers I know that they are not afraid of assessment. They say, "We are good teachers. We are not afraid of it." It will give excellent teachers an opportunity to shine, and it will resolve the problems relating to out-of-school activities, school lunch hour supervision periods, and the other parts of a teacher's daily life.
  We should consider restructuring the pay scales. The teaching profession must recognise that unless we attract mathematic and science graduates and computer scientists into the profession we shall not be able to create the technologists and scientists of the future, who will be important to the development of Britain. We shall not attract them to teaching unless they are paid adequate wage levels, commensurate with industry. Clearly, British Telecom, Plessey and the big corporations can exceed some of the salaries at present offered to young scale 1 and 2 teachers.
  A complete restructuring is required. To return to Houghton in 1974 is a waste of time, because too much water has passed under the bridge since then. We must regard the appropriate levels of remuneration on the Clegg review of 1981 as a base from which to work. If we are to give teachers' pay increases we should consider a long-term pay settlement, for example, spread over three years, including assessment and conditions of employment. We should guarantee them an inflation 13Acc-proof rise over and above an equalisation rise to represent the erosion in their pay levels, which has clearly occurred between 1981 and 1984. We could begin to achieve that by repealing the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, which set up the Burnham and CLEA/ST committees. It is a nonsense to negotiate on pay in one committee and on terms and conditions in another. We should merge the two committees. In 1981, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), who was then Secretary of State for Education and Science, told the House that it was the Government's intention to amend he Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 to bring pay and conditions of service within the scope of
  "a single negotiating body."
  That is sound sense, but there are still two committees. Instead of discussing pay in one committee and conditions of service in another, they should be discussed together.
  150
  If we repeal that Act, there may be an alteration in the union representation on the newly constituted body, which will truly reflect the membership of the unions in the teaching profession. They have changed greatly, especially recently. Many teachers have left the large unions and joined smaller ones because they will not go on strike. In west Lancashire, teachers undertook some industrial action at the beginning, but they have now rejected it. They have been reasonable in all discussions about this matter, and they have consistently declared their desire to talk to the Government and move towards a long-term solution wherever possible. The spirit of west Lancashire teachers should prevail throughout the country.
  A settlement of the long-term problems must include assessment of teachers and—I am sure the general public would welcome—this-a no-strike agreement, so that parents can guarantee their children's teaching.
  As matters stand, there will be no resolution of the problem. I urge my hon. Fiend the Under-Secretary of State to do everything that lie can to give the teachers a reasonable working wage and to undertake the restructuring of their contracts. I am aware of the Department's desire to settle the matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend can persuade the Department to reach a settlement. which can be put to the Cabinet, so that resources can be made available for the future and so that there is an end to the constant rounds of negotiations.
  I await with interest the views of my hon. Friend the Minister, who should be aware that I speak not only for myself but for many Conservative Members who believe that we should put this problem behind us. The only way in which we can run our education system is to have vision and ideals as to the direction in which it should go. The moment we lose sight of our ideals, we shall lose our way. Let us develop the best education system that we can obtain. The best way to start doing that is to solve the teachers' pay dispute on a long-term basis.
  1.40 am
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on behalf of the House for having introduced this subject on the Adjournment. I should like to say how much I agree with him.
  We are faced with a difficult situation, with which my hon. Friend has dealt fairly and responsibly, in which we accept the particular difficulties of the Government. I urge that our concentration should be on the problems of those teachers on scales 1 and 2. We need a new deal for the profession. Can we not forget the problems of the past, the difficulties we had with the teaching unions, and look for a moment to the future and try to build a teaching profession which will be worthy of the children and their parents for the future of the nation? Surely there are answers to the questions posed by my hon. Friend.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Education and Science will respond to the questions. It is a question not simply of resources, but of will, and whether it is our desire that we have a teaching profession which is worthy of the children and parents of this country and are prepared to provide the means to do that. That is the question for the House tonight.
  1.41 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) for raising this subject and acknowledge the support given to his views by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James).
  The debate is on an important matter which is of concern to all of us in the House and, indeed, to parents, children, and other members of the public throughout the country. The teachers' industrial action has disrupted our schools for virtually the whole of the spring and summer terms, and that must be a matter of considerable anxiety to us all.
  As the House will know, the unions' response to my right hon. Friend's constant encouragement to negotiate reforms which would benefit education standards and the teachers themselves has been far from positive. First, they began to back-pedal in the talks which, until last summer, had appeared to be making progress. As I said, they broke off discussions last December, and have refused to resume them. More recently, they have refused even to address the Government's offer of additional resources next year if acceptable reforms can be agreed until they have achieved what they consider to be an acceptable settlement of their 1985 pay claim.
  In saying that, I wish to emphasise at the same time that the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do not undervalue teachers. They fully recognise both the importance of the job that they do and the skill and dedication with which the great majority perform their difficult task. They also recognise that career prospects for capable and effective teachers are much diminished. We firmly believe that the Government's offer of additional resources next year, subject to agreement on reforms, can provide the means both to achieve progress towards further improvement in the standard of education provided in schools, and to begin to meet the genuine concerns of
  152
  teachers about their pay prospects. I urge the unions not to squander another opportunity to achieve real and lasting improvements to their members' position.
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that further agreement in principle must be reached by October if more resources are to be made available next year. That is a genuine deadline, because at that point decisions have to be taken on the rate support grant settlement for 1986–87. Already nearly two months have passed since the Government's offer was made. Time is fast running out. This represents the only way forward to more money for teachers' pay. It is of paramount importance to the health of the education service that the unions face up to economic reality and begin to negotiate constructively and realistically on the basis of the Government's offer. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Lancashire, West, for Cambridge and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), who is also with us, support that view.
  We must acknowledge that time is fast running out. If we are to progress in the light of the Government's offer, the unions must take advantage of the opportunity to make progress in a spirit of moderation and co-operation, which will be presented by the resumption of discussions in the Burnham committee tomorrow. I am sure that the House hopes that that opportunity will not be lost. Both sides know exactly where they stand. The Government's position has been made clear in the letters of 21 May, 2 July and 9 July. It would be the height of folly if either side were to delude itself into thinking that the Government could be persuaded to change their stance.
  We are fully cognisant of the fears and anxieties of teachers who genuinely wish to make a full and effective career in teaching at a time of falling rolls and school closures. I listened with interest to, and shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, what my two hon. Friends have said in this important debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Two o' clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Official Opposition
  Official Opposition
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Photocopiers
  Photocopiers
ENVIRONMENT
  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Local Government Ombudsman
  Local Government Ombudsman
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  Vehicle Exhaust Emissions
  Vehicle Exhaust Emissions
  Nature Conservancy Council (Minister's Speech)
  Nature Conservancy Council (Minister's Speech)
  Willenhall (Deputation)
  Willenhall (Deputation)
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Discontinuance Orders (Compensation)
  Discontinuance Orders (Compensation)
  Planning Control
  Planning Control
  Water Supplies (Quality)
  Water Supplies (Quality)
  North Pennines (Local Inquiry)
  North Pennines (Local Inquiry)
  Government Contracts
  Government Contracts
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Alvey Programme
  Alvey Programme
  Engineering Companies (Rhyl)
  Engineering Companies (Rhyl)
  Vehicle Exhaust Emission
  Vehicle Exhaust Emission
  New Businesses
  New Businesses
  Hall Russell Shipyard, Aberdeen
  Hall Russell Shipyard, Aberdeen
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  European Community (Internal Market)
  European Community (Internal Market)
  INMOS Plant, Newport
  INMOS Plant, Newport
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Duty Solicitor Scheme
  Duty Solicitor Scheme
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
PRIME MINISTER
  Falkland Islands (Soviet Submarines)
  Falkland Islands (Soviet Submarines)
  Falkland Islands (Ecology)
  Falkland Islands (Ecology)
WALES
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
EMPLOYMENT
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Unions (Political Levy)
  Unions (Political Levy)
EMPLOYMENT
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  EC (Labour Statistics)
  EC (Labour Statistics)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Training Organisations
  Training Organisations
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Air Weapons
  Air Weapons
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Victim Support Schemes
  Victim Support Schemes
  Prison Service (Chaplains)
  Prison Service (Chaplains)
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Police (Training)
  Police (Training)
  Drugs (Rapid Testing Equipment)
  Drugs (Rapid Testing Equipment)
  Independent Local Radio
  Independent Local Radio
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Police Act 1964 (Reports)
  Police Act 1964 (Reports)
  Philip Rapier (Inquest)
  Philip Rapier (Inquest)
  Opinion Polls
  Opinion Polls
  Strangeways Prison
  Strangeways Prison
  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Mr. Jim McAlpine
  Mr. Jim McAlpine
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  RMS St. Helena (Replacement)
  RMS St. Helena (Replacement)
  Food Aid
  Food Aid
  Tropical Forests
  Tropical Forests
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
  West Indies
  West Indies
  Organisation of East Caribbean States
  Organisation of East Caribbean States
  Surplus Potato Stocks
  Surplus Potato Stocks
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Broadleaved Woods
  Broadleaved Woods
  New Potatoes
  New Potatoes
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Grain Storage
  Grain Storage
  International Whaling Conference
  International Whaling Conference
  Potato Marketing Board
  Potato Marketing Board
CIVIL SERVICE
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
THE ARTS
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
TRANSPORT
  M6
  M6
  Buses (Annual inspections)
  Buses (Annual inspections)
  M5–A30
  M5–A30
  Drink-and-Drive Campaign
  Drink-and-Drive Campaign
  Dartford Tunnel
  Dartford Tunnel
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Leeds and Liverpool Canal
  Leeds and Liverpool Canal
ENERGY
  Electricity Generation Costs
  Electricity Generation Costs
  Deep-Mined Coal
  Deep-Mined Coal
  Efficiency and Conservation
  Efficiency and Conservation
  Coal Mining Industry (Employees Participation)
  Coal Mining Industry (Employees Participation)
  Cross-Channel Cable Link
  Cross-Channel Cable Link
  National Coal Board (Chairman)
  National Coal Board (Chairman)
  National Working Miners Committee
  National Working Miners Committee
  Blidworth Colliery, Notts
  Blidworth Colliery, Notts
  Offshore Oilfields
  Offshore Oilfields
  Coal Sales
  Coal Sales
  Energy Efficiency Office (Budget)
  Energy Efficiency Office (Budget)
  Scotland (Coal Mining)
  Scotland (Coal Mining)
  Gas Industry (Privatisation)
  Gas Industry (Privatisation)
  Energy Efficiency Year
  Energy Efficiency Year
  Energy Secretary (USA)
  Energy Secretary (USA)
  Electricity Supply Industry (Privatisation)
  Electricity Supply Industry (Privatisation)
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Energy Study Competition
  Energy Study Competition
  Insulation Programmes
  Insulation Programmes
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Miners (Redundancy)
  Miners (Redundancy)
  Dismissed Miners
  Dismissed Miners
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Education Committees
  Education Committees
  Members' Correspond
  Members' Correspond
  Higher Education (Expenditure)
  Higher Education (Expenditure)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
SCOTLAND
  Judges
  Judges
  Ross Hall Hospital
  Ross Hall Hospital
  Forestry Commission (Meetings)
  Forestry Commission (Meetings)
  Peterhead-Aberdeen Trunk Road
  Peterhead-Aberdeen Trunk Road
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Health Contracts
  Health Contracts
  Nurses' Pay
  Nurses' Pay
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Electronics Industry (Statistics)
  Electronics Industry (Statistics)
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
  NHS Waiting Lists
  NHS Waiting Lists
  NHS Employees
  NHS Employees
  Health Boards
  Health Boards
  Edinburgh District Council (Expenditure)
  Edinburgh District Council (Expenditure)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  VAT (Health)
  VAT (Health)
  Customs Officials
  Customs Officials
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Capital Gains
  Capital Gains
DEFENCE
  Caribbean Area
  Caribbean Area
  Russian Speakers
  Russian Speakers
  Departmental Police
  Departmental Police
  NATO
  NATO
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Submarine Berths, Portsmouth
  Submarine Berths, Portsmouth
  Military Traffic Incident, Helensburgh
  Military Traffic Incident, Helensburgh
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Portaferry to Strangford Ferry
  Portaferry to Strangford Ferry
  Prison Service
  Prison Service
  District Heating
  District Heating
  Vehicle Weight Tests
  Vehicle Weight Tests
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  Bomb Attacks (Newry and Killeen)
  Bomb Attacks (Newry and Killeen)
  Pensions
  Pensions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nuclear Testing
  Nuclear Testing
  South West Africa People's Organisation
  South West Africa People's Organisation
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  EC (Foreign Policy)
  EC (Foreign Policy)
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  BBC External Services
  BBC External Services
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Streptomycin
  Streptomycin
  Industrial Death Pension
  Industrial Death Pension
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Child Patients (Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley)
  Child Patients (Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley)
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Stanley Royd Hospital (Salmonella Poisoning)
  Stanley Royd Hospital (Salmonella Poisoning)
  Telephone Installations (Medical Need)
  Telephone Installations (Medical Need)
  Births (Malformations and Handicaps)
  Births (Malformations and Handicaps)
  Down's Syndrome
  Down's Syndrome
  Operation Costs
  Operation Costs
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Congenital Diseases (Sellafield)
  Congenital Diseases (Sellafield)
  Congenital Malformation (Reporting Scheme)
  Congenital Malformation (Reporting Scheme)
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Mrs. Julia Hall
  Mrs. Julia Hall
  Voluntary Redundancy
  Voluntary Redundancy
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Sterile Intravenous Fluids
  Sterile Intravenous Fluids
  Specialist Claims Control
  Specialist Claims Control
  Health Expenditure (Peterborough)
  Health Expenditure (Peterborough)
  Visually Handicapped Persons
  Visually Handicapped Persons
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Health Authorities (Crown Immunity)
  Health Authorities (Crown Immunity)
  Medical Information
  Medical Information
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement

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

Allotment Gardens: Local Authority Reports
Lord Wallace of Coslany: 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 how many local authorities do not submit periodic reports on allotment gardens under their control to their appropriate committees.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this information is not available. It is for each local authority to decide whether or not periodic reports are submitted to committees on allotment matters.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this Question is in the nature of an educational Question? Is he further aware that all local authorities submit to their councillors at least quarterly reports of allotments let, allotments vacant and people on the waiting list? To say, as the noble Lord said on a previous Bill's Third Reading, that to give this information to the local associations would be at the cost of excessive manpower is absolute nonsense.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am all for answering educational Questions. Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, Sections 54 and 59 of the Smallholdings and Allotments Act 1908 were repealed. These placed on local authorities a duty to keep separate allotment accounts and to make an annual report, which is why this information is not available centrally.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although, as he said in answer to my noble friend last week, the Thorpe Report may be a little out of date, the need for allotments, and pressure from the Government to keep allotments going, is more needed now than it ever has been? Does he not see that because of the high numbers of unemployed in this country and because houses are now being built without gardens, for these two reasons, if for no other, the Government really should be putting some pressure and some thought behind this?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are putting a lot of thought and not a little pressure into the provision of allotments; but the point at issue as I understand it from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is that this pressure should be statutory pressure. I have made it perfectly clear over the last two years that statutory pressure is not to be considered on the grounds that we have no proof out in the country that local authorities
496
are not providing for the demand for allotments which the noble Baroness says is there.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, how can the noble Lord say that he is putting on informed pressure if he is without the basic elementary information on which to exert the pressure?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if it were apparent to central Government, as it periodically is on all sorts of other matters, that local demands are not being met then central Government will of course act.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has admitted that, under legislation, local authorities have a statutory obligation to publish an annual report; and that is precisely the information I have been asking for? Bearing in mind the answers that I have received at various times from the Department of the Environment, will he ask his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to transfer the care of allotments from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, where I am certain that they will have more common sense treatment?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord feels that allotments are not getting common sense treatment from the Department of the Environment. However, as I said earlier, under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the duty on local authorities to make an annual report has been abolished.

Southern Africa: Commonwealth Committee Meeting
2.39 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 why they did not support the other nations of the Commonwealth at the emergency meeting in London of the Commonwealth Committee on Southern Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, our representative at the emergency meeting on 24th June joined the others present in strongly condemning the South African attack against Botswana and supporting the Botswana Government. This was reflected in the joint statement issued after the meeting.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is not how the press has reported it and not how people who are interested in affairs in Southern Africa generally see it? Is he further aware that on all these questions involving South Africa, with its record of atrocity, apartheid and invasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has made statements which any civilised person could support in full? Why, then, did we let down the particular committee investigating these things when we did not support it at the special meeting that was called?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the United Kingdom spoke early in the meeting in firm support of Botswana's statement to the committee. This is reflected in the joint statement which followed the meeting. There was no question of the United Kingdom not supporting the other members of the Commonwealth.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the serious developments in Namibia, can the noble Lord say what is the purpose of the meeting of the contact group which is shortly to be held here in London and what policies Her Majesty's Government will be placing before that group? In view of the Government's known criticism of the action of South Africa in relation to Namibia and elsewhere as being in contravention of the United Nations Resolution 435, can the noble Lord say precisely what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of South Africa on this serious matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the meeting to which the noble Lord refers is a routine meeting being held at official rather than ministerial level. It will review the present situation as far Namibia is concerned, and hopefully chart the way forward. I do not want the noble Lord to imagine that some great new insight will emerge from that meeting, because he will appreciate the difficulties that have emerged in the past and the disappointing lack of progress that there has been in this area thus far. As regards our general stance towards this issue, the noble Lord will be aware that we have deplored the violence that has occurred in Southern Africa, from whatever source it came.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister seriously whether the Government would reconsider their attitude towards South Africa in view of the decision taken by both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the American Congress and also in view of the fact that in another place a Bill has passed its First Reading for consideration of sanctions? Have the Government any policy which can prevent South Africa from continuing its policy, which has gone on for years and years without any serious attempt at changing it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the result of the sort of policy the noble Lord has in mind of course would be to isolate South Africa not only from commerce and trade, which I think lies at the heart of what the noble Lord proposes, but also from the influence that we believe we can bring to bear in seeking to persuade her to modify her actions and indeed to move forward so far as the Namibian matter is concerned. It is for that reason that we do not believe that sanctions would serve any useful purpose.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord and his noble colleague Lady Young have shown great stamina in constantly telling us what representations they have made, what dialogue they have had, and what criticisms they have made. In view of the end product of all these words, can the noble Lord now tell us whether they have any action in mind in order to change the situation, particularly between South Africa and Namibia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the truth is that the scope for action, as the noble Lord describes it, is somewhat limited: South Africa is after all an independent, sovereign nation. The way forward, we believe, is by way of persuasive arrangements. We have been involved in that way for a number of years. I agree that the progress has not been significant and we regret that very much, but we are not persuaded that an alternative course would yield any better results.
Lord Oram: My Lords, when the Minister says that the British attitude at that committee meeting was reflected in the statement issued afterwards, does that include agreement by the British delegation with the opinion that full and adequate compensation should be paid by South Africa to Botswana for the damage to life and property? May I ask the Minister what action the Government have taken to ensure that that compensation is being paid?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, we did agree with that part of the statement, and indeed with all of the statement that was issued after that meeting, and we have made our views on this matter very clear to the South African Government.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, could the noble Lord go a little further and tell the House what proposals Her Majesty's Government will have for the Commonwealth leaders' conference in Nassau in October? Will the question of Namibia be on the agenda and will the Government be prepared to subscribe to economic sanctions if the other Commonwealth leaders agree to do so?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Namibia is not really a Commonwealth matter; it is of course a United Nations matter, as the noble Lord will appreciate. It is the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 435 to which the noble Lord referred earlier, which we believe is the key to success in that area. We shall be seeking to persuade South Africa of that view. I am not sure that is specifically a matter for the Commonwealth meeting in Nassau later this year. As to sanctions, I believe we have made our view clear on that matter. We do not think that they would achieve the result that is desired.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that, with regard to Southern Africa and South Africa, many of the British Commonwealth countries at this special meeting voiced support for President Reagan? The President has warned South Africa that he will be compelled to seek sanctions if they do not accede to some of the resolutions of the United Nations. When that becomes a reality, can the noble Minister say whether this Government will or will not support the United States Administration?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord asks me to answer what is a purely hypothetical question. Our present position is that we do not believe sanctions would have the effect which the noble Lord desires. I would ask him to reflect on all the occasions in history when sanctions have been applied and have proved to be useless.

Films: Preservation
2.49 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose a conference to consider how to ensure the preservation of nitrate film stock, and will issue invitations to attend that conference to the companies owning nitrate film stock, the British Film Institute and representatives of those employed in the film industry.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, this a matter for the British Film Institute, which with the help of substantial Government and private funding, in 1975 started an extensive programme to duplicate its stock of nitrate-based film on to new safety film. During this time the stock at risk has been reduced from 200 million feet to 130 million feet. I am pleased to announce that in August this year the BFI is to start the construction of the J. Paul Getty Film Preservation Centre of the National Film Archive. This will provide increased facilities for the storage and preservation of film and video and will enable the BFI to increase its rate of duplication of nitrate film by 50 per cent. to 7 million feet per year and so complete the transfer of its present nitrate stock within a safe timescale.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that that information is very welcome news indeed, particularly against the background that at present the funds made available to the British Film Institute allow them to treat only 4 million feet? My understanding is that they are required to treat 7 million feet, and that appears to be something for the future. But would the Minister not agree that since there is the prospect of losing some of our national heritage, nothing would be lost by arranging a conference of the entrepreneurs, the workers in the industry, and the British Film Institute to see whether they can produce over a period of time a scheme that will guarantee absolutely the safety of stock which is in danger?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his welcome to the considerable strides forward that are being made by Government and individuals in partnership. I have no objection to conferences. But as I said in my original Answer, that would of course be a matter for the industry and for the British Film Institute.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, while the noble Earl is to be congratulated on continuing the national scheme started in 1975, is he aware that we cannot altogether divorce ourselves from the deterioration of stock which is held in other hands? Is he also aware of reports that stock held by Movietone and by Pathé is seriously deteriorating? Will he ask those of his officials concerned to have a look into this and give him a report?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, implies, there are two major collections of nitrate film held by commercial companies rather than by the British Film Institute for which I am responsible. These two collections continue to generate considerable revenue which I believe the companies could well use to pay towards their duplication on to safety film. I hope that the companies will notice what both noble Lords have said.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, arising out of what my noble friend asked, will the noble Earl confirm that none of the more important film classics has been allowed to deteriorate during the last few years?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I understand that thanks to the good progress we are making this is the case. But I shall of course keep the situation continually under review.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, as a former chairman of the British Film Institute and the National Film Archive I naturally welcome the statement that the noble Earl the Minister made regarding the progress which, with his assistance, the British Film Institute has been able to make. But is he aware, as I am sure he is, that the two collections to which reference has been made—the Pathé News Library and the Movietone News Library—contain an absolutely unique collection amounting to a visual history of the first half of this century, and that in a very short space of time, perhaps two or three years, they will be irretrievably lost because they are on nitrate? In those circumstances will he indicate that he will be prepared to take some initiative either to goad or perhaps to encourage the two companies which own these librairies—namely, Thorn EMI and Twentieth Century Fox—to take some appropriate effective action to ensure that such a disaster does not occur?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as I think the noble Lord is well aware, I have myself considerable reponsibilities for trying to avert disaster, as he puts it—and as a fellow film buff I do not think that that is too strong a term—in the British Film Institute stock for which I am responsible. I hope that the two great companies he mentioned will pay heed to his words and I am delighted to encourage them. I understand that the British Film Institute would welcome the opportunity to carry out the duplication on a commercial basis, and, should the companies sponsor this, the institute could apply for an award under my Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme. So I hope that that too will happen.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I once more repeat my gratitude to the noble Earl the Minister for his opening statement, which is certainly encouraging? In view of what he has said—that is, in regard to the limited nature of his remit in this matter almost wholly directed to the stock held by the British Film Institute—cloes not the noble Earl the Minister agree that the Government's presence at a conference which he suggests could be called by the British Film Institute would do nothing but good? If in fact that initiative comes forward without financial

501
commitment but with encouragement, will the Minister be able to respond helpfully?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, in my answers I have tried to show that I am aware of the importance of this issue in terms of the National Film Archive. As I said, the question of a conference is a matter for the British Film Institute. But should it be interested in calling one, I am sure that I should be most pleased to participate.

Detention Centres: Drill and Gym Sessions
2.55 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: 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 it is true, as recently reported on television, that drill and gym sessions are being curtailed as part of the detention centre training programme because the boys enjoy them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, PE has not been curtailed, but the separate drill sessions and extra PE included in the experiment with tougher regimes in four detention centres have not been carried into the new regime introduced in all detention centres on 6th March. Many inmates came to find drill undemanding, and the exclusion of these elements leaves more time for activities such as demanding work and education. Under the new regime inmates undergo a particularly brisk and structured initial two-week programme, including extra parades and inspections, and have an average of one hour's PE each weekday throughout sentence.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, which is uncharacteristically less forthcoming than usual, I should like to repeat the basis of my Question. Are these curtailments being enforced because the boys are enjoying the work? I think that it is reasonable to have a centre which is aimed at deterrence. However, I believe that it is very misguided that, when by chance one hits on something which gives the boys a chance to show themselves, to compete and to take an interest in something, one should not follow that up to do the most one can for them.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord may have seen the "Panorama" programme which indicated that there was a reduction. That was not correct in all that it said. One has to balance enjoyment with the need to introduce self-pride and self-discipline. The regime which is now being pursued is effective. We believe that it will continue to be so.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, with his professional experience as a soldier the noble Lord knows very well that drill in particular is a weapon,
502
one might almost say, to get rather sloppy and feckless people into condition to face the rest of life. Surely the idea of enjoyment is a question of achievement, and the idea of achievement is the first thing that one wants for these boys. I am not satisfied that the noble Lord has entirely exonerated the Government from appearing to say, "We cannot do this because they would enjoy it".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think in my original Answer I said that it was the separate drill sessions and the extra PE that were being curtailed. I have details of the weekday routine for detention centres and I can assure the noble Lord that a great deal of PE still takes place.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that curtailment is still curtailment?
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister—and I do so in a light-hearted mood, as a former First World War company sergeant-major—whether these boys are being taught how to form fours?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, will the noble Lord repeat the question?
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I shall repeat my question. I ask the noble Lord the Minister—and I ask as a former First World War company sergeant-major—whether these boys are being taught how to form fours.
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, they are not.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he agrees that the programme in question referred to child care and showed boys learning how to look after babies? Does he agree with me that that was excellent since it could prevent child abuse and neglect in the future?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords; I think that the noble Baroness has put her finger on an important point. While many of these people already have children when they go to the centre, they come from the sort of background which means that they would not normally have been taught the basic parentcraft which is necessary. The noble Baroness may care to know that the governor has had many letters supporting the activity that was shown.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, in view of the enjoyment that the boys derive from drill and PE during their stay at detention centres, any encouragement is given to them to join one or other of the admirable uniformed youth organisations when they leave, and therefore to come under effective influence in a constructive way? I am thinking of the Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps, the Sea Cadets or the Boys' Brigade.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord puts his finger on an important point. It is important to try to provide the necessary resettlement for boys leaving these centres, and I shall certainly look

503
into this, but I am under the impression that that sort of thing is taken care of.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord himself was trained in baby care—I actually was not—but I wonder whether, if the boys began to enjoy that, there would be a curtailment of their courses to!
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in answer to the first question, no I was not. So far as the general principle of it is concerned, I think that those who were being given that instruction were not necessarily being given quite the easy time that some people imagine.

Scarborough Borough Council Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Greater London Council (Money) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and Reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and Reasons be now considered.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO A LORDS AMENDMENT, COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
[References are to Bill (123) as first printed by the Lords. Commons amendments etc. are printed in italics.]

Local Government Bill

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 6, page 3, line 36, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Secretary of State shall before the abolition date lay before Parliament a report on the steps he will take to secure the full adoption by metropolitan district councils and the London borough councils of those facilities, services, and responsibilities for the protection and enjoyment of the countryside and areas for urban nature conservation which serve the continuing needs of the wider county areas and neighbouring populations.").
  The Commons agree to the above amendment with the following amendments:
  2 Line 4, leave out ("metropolitan district councils and the London borough councils') and insert ("the councils to which functions are transferred by this section in Greater London or a metropolitan county")
  3 Line 8, leave out ("the wider county areas") and insert ("Greater London or that county").
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 2 and
  504
  3 to the Lords Amendment No. 1. It was on 7th May that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, with support from several parts of the Committee, persuaded your Lordships to place a duty upon the Secretary of State that was not in the Bill when it came to us from another place. She persuaded the Committee, although she did not at that stage persuade the Government. The duty that your Lordships put into the Bill was a duty for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the steps he was taking to see that the facilities, services and responsibilities of the urban authorities for the protection and enjoyment of the countryside were fully adopted after abolition by the borough and district councils.
  Nearly a month later, during consideration of the Committee's report on the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, persuaded the Government to add an urban perspective to the rural perspective covered by the original amendment. In this he was assisted, in particular, by my noble friend Lord Chelwood. The duty that your Lordships proposed to another place thus became a duty not only to report on the steps taken to protect countryside interests, but also to report on the steps taken to protect urban nature conservation areas. Your Lordships clearly shared a general concern, with considerable support from outside the House, that the Secretary of State should not merely take but should be seen to take particular care to protect the natural environment from any adverse effects of reorganisation. I am happy to tell your Lordships that the Government are persuaded that this new provision is a proper one for inclusion in the Bill.
  On consideration, however, we found that the new subsection (2) needed improvement in two respects. First, as drafted it does not include the Common Council of the City of London, which is also to receive functions under Clause 6; and, secondly, it refers to "the wider county areas", which is not apt in the case of Greater London. The Commons amendments therefore substitute references to the authorities to whom functions are transferred under the clause for references to Greater London or a metropolitan county.
  This is far from being the first point, and very far indeed from being the only one, on which the Government and another place have been persuaded by your Lordships to change and improve the provisions of this Bill. This was, in fact, the third of the amendments that we sent to another place. The first and second comprised the major changes we made in the planning provision for London, but they were accepted in exactly the form in which we had drafted them and do not therefore figure on the Marshalled List this afternoon. This, our third amendment, did need tidying up, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale foreshadowed when he accepted the addition to it of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am glad to start today's proceedings by asking your Lordships to accept what is, in effect, a small improvement to your Lordships' own improvement to the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to the Lords Amendment No. 1—(Lord Elton.)
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I wonder whether I may start this afternoon's proceedings on a happy note by thanking the Government for accepting this amendment. I do so on behalf of all those who have their hearts in the country and in the countryside, and, in particular, on behalf of the National Farmers' Union and the Countryside Commission, who were very interested in this amendment. On their behalf, I should like to thank the Government, not only for the amendment but also for the discussions and the letters that have gone on between the Government and those organisations since the moving of this amendment. Perhaps, in a lighter vein, I may say that, despite rumours to the contrary, the Chief Whip has not been pressurising me or my noble friend Lord Radnor in dark corners of your Lordships' House since this amendment was accepted. Perhaps that is because your Lordships threw out a certain Bill a week-and-a-half ago.
  Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I from this side of the House say how pleased we are that the other place accepted the amendments which had all-party support in this House? May I also say that, as I understand it, my Chief Whip is very pleased to support what I have said. We are at least starting off on a happy note. It will probably deteriorate very quickly, but nevertheless it is a good start.
  Baroness Stedman: My Lords, before the position deteriorates, may I, from these Benches, as one of the signatories to the original amendment, say how much we appreciate what has happened—the tidying up that has been done, and the fact that the amendment has been accepted by the Government.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I am no great believer in weather forecasts, so my pleasure in your Lordships' pleasure is unalloyed.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  4 Before Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
  ("Highway and Road Traffic functions.
  . The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the London Residuary Body to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in London to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

  (a) that the Body shall have a duty to prepare, in consultation with the borough councils, plans relating to highways and traffic in Greater London and the Body and borough councils shall have regard to such plans when exercising their statutory functions;

  (b) that it shall be a duty of the Body to establish and maintain an organisation for the purpose of assembling, disseminating and keeping up to date, information on road traffic and other transport in Greater London and that the Body may commission such research and carry out such surveys as they think fit in fulfilment of this duty;

  (c) that the Body shall have the functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to metropolitan roads;

  (d) that not later than 1st April 1987 the Body shall, in consultation with the borough councils, review the existing network of metropolitan roads and prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals for the revision of that network;

  (e) that, as respects metropolitan roads, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall apply to the Body (for the
  506
  purposes of traffic management and parking control) as they now apply to the Greater London Council;

  (f) that the Body shall be a local authority for the purposes of section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (power of local authorities as to giving of road safety information and training);

  (g) that the Body shall be authorised, for the purpose of regulating traffic on metropolitan roads, to exercise the powers of a borough council under the said Act of 1984 as respects roads communicating with or adjacent to metropolitan roads in accordance with procedures to be prescribed by the Secretary of State;

  (h) that, for the purposes of ensuring that the exercise by the London borough council of their powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 does not have any adverse effect on traffic on roads for which they are not the highway authority, the Body shall be given reserve powers similar to those given to the Secretary of State in Part I of Schedule 9 of the said Act;

  (i) that the Body may exercise the powers of a London borough council or the Common Council under sections 6 and 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes of prohibiting or restricting such use of heavy commercial vehicles as the Body considers expedient for preserving or improving the amenities of Greater London or some part or parts thereof;

  (j) that the Body shall have a duty to control, manage, maintain and, where appropriate, develop and extend the system of urban traffic control through traffic light signals established by the Greater London Council;

  (k) that the Body shall be a "London Authority" within the meaning of section 50 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (travel concessions on journeys in or around Greater London);

  (l) that the Body shall be able to assist, by way of grant or loan, the provision of transport services by a voluntary organisation for the benefit of the public or am class of persons.").

  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following Reason (No. 21):
  Because they are inconsistent with the principle of the Bill to transfer most of the functions of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils to the local authorities in their areas.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove rose to move, as Motion 4A, That this House do not insist on their amendment numbered 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 21, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
  4B Insert the following new clause—
  (" .—(1) On the appointed day there shall be established for Greater London a body corporate to be known as the London Highways and Traffic Authority.
  (2) The Authority shall consist of members of the London borough councils and the Common Council appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the Authority to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in London to the extent and in the manner that such orders shall provide—

  (a) that the Authority shall have a duty to prepare, in consultation with the borough councils, plans relating to highways and traffic in Greater London and the Authority and borough councils shall have regard to such plans when exercising their statutory functions;

  (b) that it shall be a duty of the Authority to establish and maintain an organisation for the purpose of assembling, disseminating and keeping up to date, information on road traffic and other transport in Greater London and that the Authority may commission such research and carry out such surveys as they think fit in fulfilment of this duty;

  (c) that the Authority shall have the functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to metropolitan roads;

  507

  (d) that not later than 1st April 1987 the Authority shall, in consultation with the borough councils, review the existing network of metropolitan roads and prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals for the revision of that network;

  (e)that as respects metropolitan roads, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall apply to the Authority (for the purposes of traffic management and parking control) as it previously applied to the Greater London Council;

  (f) that the Authority shall be a local authority for the purposes of section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (power of local authorities as to giving of road safety information and training);

  (g) that the Authority shall be authorised, for the purpose of regulating traffic on metropolitan roads, to exercise the powers of a borough council under the said Act of 1984 as respects roads communicating with or adjacent to metropolitan roads in accordance with procedures to be prescribed by the Secretary of State;

  (h) that, for the purpose of ensuring that the exercise by the London borough council of their powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 does not have any adverse effect on traffic on roads for which they are not the highway authority, the Authority shall be given reserve powers similar to those given to the Secretary of State in Part I of Schedule 9 of the said Act;

  (i) that the Authority may exercise the powers of a London borough council or the Common Council under sections 6 and 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes of prohibiting or restricting such use of heavy commercial vehicles as the Authority considers expedient for preserving or improving the amenities of Greater London as a whole;

  (j) that the Authority have a duty to control, manage, maintain and, where appropriate, develop and extend the system of urban traffic control through traffic light signals established by the Greater London Council;

  (k) that the Authority shall be a "London Authority" within the meaning of section 50 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (travel concessions on journeys in or around Greater London); and

  (l) that the Authority shall be able to assist, by way of grant or loan, the provision of transport services by a voluntary organisation for the benefit of the public or any class of persons.

  (4) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the amendment, adaptation or modification of this Act or any enactment passed before this Act as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for securing the purposes of, or to be incidental to or consequential upon the establishment of the Authority under this section.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should explain for the convenience of the House that if the House agrees to my Motion 4A I shall move formally Motions 5A, 8A and 21A, since they are consequential.
  5A That this House do insist on their amendment No. 5 to which the Commons disagree for the Reason numbered 21.
  8A That this House do not insist on their amendments No. 6 to 8 to which the Commons disagree for the Reason numbered 21 but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
  21A That this House do insist on their amendments Nos. 9 to 20 to which the Commons disagree for the Reason numbered 21.
  On the other hand, should the House disagree with my Motion 4A, I will not be moving those consequential amendments.
  If I may turn to the substance of the amendments, the Commons have disagreed with your Lordships' amendments which transfer some highways and traffic functions to the residuary body in London and to what were the passenger transport joint authorities in the metropolitan counties. The reason is that these
  508
  amendments are inconsistent with the principles of the Bill to transfer most of the functions of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities to the boroughs and the districts. We accept the criticism regarding the residuary body made both here and in another place, and my Motion No. 4A regularises the position by setting up a joint authority for London as well. In fact, these amendments not only meet the basic criticisms of the other place but also offer unfettered and meaningful devolution of functions to the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts free of any interference from central Government.
  Perhaps I may refer to the words of the Secretary of State for Transport when speaking to the Bill, at column 202 of the Commons Official Report of 7th November 1984. He said:
  Those joint boards are not quangos. They will consist of district councillors directly responsible to their own councils, and so, in turn, to the ratepayers".
  As such, the amendments are more consistent with the principles of the Bill and with the Government's original manifesto commitment than the Government's own proposal. Let me remind your Lordships of the precise wording of that manifesto:
  "The metropolitan councils and the GLC have been shown to be a wasteful and unnecessary tier of government. We shall abolish them and return most of their functions to the boroughs and districts. Services which need to be administered over a wider area, such as police and fire and education in inner London, will be run by joint boards of borough or district representatives".
  The need for highway and traffic functions to be administered over a wider area is acknowledged by everyone. This point has been conceded by the Government in the Bill and in consultation documents. The Minister of State in the other place stated at the Report stage of the debate that,
  "there has to be overall planning for roads and for traffic control".
  However, the Government completely depart from their own stated principle since they take upon themselves the role of overall planning for roads and traffic by issuing mandatory traffic guidance to the boroughs and districts and by reserve powers to take over the sophisticated urban traffic control systems which are powerful tools for enacting traffic policy. Additionally, in London the Secretary of State proposes to extend the trunk road network and designate roads over which he will have control of traffic policy. To my understanding, this is an absolute reversal of the commitment to return highway and traffic functions to the boroughs. Where is the real devolution that the Government claim and the Government proclaimed as being the desire in their manifesto?
  On the other hand, the amendments now before the House would place the responsibility for highways and traffic planning, apart from existing trunk roads, solely in the hands of the boroughs and districts. The county-wide area element of responsibility for the main road network for which the Government admit that a consistent and coherent approach is necessary would be the responsibility of the authority through elected members appointed by the individual borough and district councils. Highway and traffic matters and all other local roads would become the direct responsibility of the separate boroughs and districts; moreover, in London the authority would undertake a

  509
  review of the metropolitan road network within one year. The borough representatives would in this case therefore decide themselves, subject of course, as always, to the Secretary of State's agreement, the most appropriate division between local and strategic aspects of highway and traffic planning in London.
  3.15 p.m.
  These amendments thoroughly transfer highway and traffic functions to the boroughs and the districts. They do not erode local democracy by placing overall control in central Government hands. They also, in line again with the Government's manifesto commitments, ensure that those services which need to be administered over a wider area will be run by a joint board of borough or district representatives. The two sets of authorities in London and the metropolitan counties would have broadly similar sets of powers and responsibilities, bearing in mind the historic differences between them.
  Each authority would, as required by order of the Secretary of State, produce a London or a county-wide highway and traffic plan which would be related to land use policies. It would assess London or countywide priorities on the main road network and be able to allocate investment where it was most needed. It would be able to maintain specialist services and staff required to plan, design and construct major highways and bridges and underpasses and tunnels. It would provide an organisation with sufficient breadth and budget to sustain specialist teams with sophisticated computer back-up and data collecting systems to enable them to implement London or county-wide programmes in an effective and economic way. It would integrate teams of highway and traffic planners, highway designers, traffic management engineers, traffic signals engineers and accident prevention experts under one umbrella organisation, thus providing cross-fertilisation of ideas and promoting imaginative, cost-effective solutions to the complex problems of large conurbations.
  All these advantages have been noted in the report on the consequences of the abolition by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Indeed, the main recommendation of that report, particularly in respect of London, was:
  "to establish a joint authority for highways and traffic in Greater London".
  This amendment complies with that recommendation. The placement of strategic highways and traffic functions into the new passenger transport authorities in the metropolitan counties also complies precisely with the report's recommendation,
  "to make provision in clause 27 for strategic transport authorities in place of passenger transport authorities".
  The Coopers and Lybrand study into the financial implications of the abolition of the Greater London Council stated quite unambiguously that transport and land use were important services which are best carried out on a London-wide basis. I shall quote briefly from their report:
  "The integration of London and a large number of residents who work in one part of London and live in another suggests a need to plan and deliver transport on a London-wide basis. Our review identified strong linkages between public transport planning,
  510
  highways planning, traffic management and enforcement and development planning and control. The need for Londonwide—and possibly wider still to incorporate parts of the South-East of the country—transport planning is generally accepted".
  These amendments meet the commitments of the Government's manifesto. They maintain local democratic control over roads and traffic. They are consistent, I firmly believe, with the principles of the Bill and comply very closely with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. They have many positive and practical advantages over the Government's proposal, and the House would be failing in its duty if it did not grasp this opportunity substantially to improve this Bill, which I believe is the major function of this House. Therefore, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 4B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.)
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has proposed an amendment in lieu of Amendment No. 4 and consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, which sought to require the transfer of certain GLC highways and traffic functions to the London residuary body. The noble Lord has also urged the House to insist on their Amendment No. 5 and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 9 to 20, which sought to require the transfer of certain metropolitan county council highways and traffic functions to the metropolitan county joint passenger transport authorities.
  The noble Lord's amendments in lieu, however, do no more than substitute a new indirectly elected joint London highways and traffic authority in the place of the London residuary body. They thus share all the disadvantages of the original amendments with which the Commons have disagreed on the grounds that:
  "they are inconsistent with the principle of the Bill to transfer most of the functions of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils to the local authorities".
  For that reason I disagree with the proposed new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I should like to explain more fully the thinking behind our reasoning.
  The proposals in Clause 7 of the original Bill were quite clear: to transfer the highways and traffic management functions of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to the borough and district councils. Those were in keeping with the overall principles of the Bill: to devolve functions to the lower-tier authorities and so remove an unnecessary tier of local government. The proposed additional clauses are clearly inconsistent with that principle.
  In the Government's view it would be wrong to perpetuate three tiers of highway and road traffic authority in London and even more counterproductive to introduce a third tier in the metropolitan counties where there are only two at present. We regard it as a recipe for confusion and delay to have three tiers of highway and traffic authority. Under the provisions of the original Bill, there would be two tiers of responsibility in all metropolitan areas. Moreover, borough and district councils would only have to consult their neighbours where cross-boundary traffic

  511
  effects arose, while proposed clauses would result in their having to consult the London highway and traffic authority or the joint authority about almost every traffic management decision.
  The argument for a third tier of highway and traffic authority is based on the assumption that a strategic authority is needed to co-ordinate highways and traffic on the roads within a metropolitan area. I shall return to that point in a moment. However, highway authorities have always made joint arrangements and ensured co-ordination with each other where necessary. I do not understand why there should be such pessimism about boroughs and districts making the necessary arrangements in future. We are confident of the ability of boroughs and districts to develop and carry through large schemes where they are needed. Indeed, boroughs are already the highway authority for nearly 7,000 miles of London's 8,000 miles of roads. They already undertake some major schemes. They demonstrate the competence of local authorities in such matters.
  Moreover, there will be ample opportunity for the boroughs and districts to consider the overall planning and development of the road network in their areas. One forum will be the joint planning committee we have provided for London, and elsewhere the regional conferences. The preparation of transport policies and programmes for submission to the Secretary of State will provide another opportunity.
  Two main concerns underlay the debate on these two clauses. One was whether the new arrangements proposed by the Government would cater effectively for the day-to-day co-ordination of county-wide highway and traffic issues. The other was about the future of expert teams supporting the main statutory functions. I will take the two issues separately, to explain why I believe that the arrangements proposed by the Government are effective and more appropriate than those contained in the two clauses.
  To take first the question of county-wide highway and traffic issues, we understand the fears about whether there will be effective co-ordination where this is needed. We believe that those fears have been exaggerated. Most traffic and highway issues are only local in nature, or at most concern neighbouring authorities. Only a very small proportion affect every borough and district. Why do I say most highways and traffic issues are local? I ask noble Lords to consider whether they regard painting yellow lines, siting pedestrian crossings, providing parking spaces, or banning right turns as county or local issues? We do not need a separate tier for those matters. Such issues are best dealt with at district or borough level. That will bring decisions closer to local people, and will enhance accountability by making local councillors responsible for local decisions. That must be good for democracy.
  Noble Lords may ask whether the new arrangements will cater for those few occasions when wider area highway and traffic issues do arise. We are confident that they will. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 places a duty on borough and district councils to consult other councils if their traffic and parking proposals would directly affect traffic in other councils'
  512
  areas, and in the event of an unwithdrawn objection from such an affected council the proposals will come to the Secretary of State for a decision. Schedule 5 also provides powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on traffic management to local authorities in order to ensure consistent standards. If the guidance is disregarded, with the likelihood of adverse consequences for traffic over a wider area, there are powers for the Secretary of State to intervene.
  I should mention that important tool of traffic management, the urban traffic control systems. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that those systems are kept functioning efficiently, and the Bill provides reserve powers for the Secretary of State to ensure that this will be done. If boroughs or districts were unable to reach satisfactory agreements to operate the systems themselves, the Secretary of State would exercise his reserve powers to take over responsibility for urban traffic control systems. My noble friends Lord Cranbrook and Lord Kaberry, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and other noble Lords have expressed concern about the future of the systems in our previous debates. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are clearly committed to ensuring that the UTCs continue.
  Of course the specialists working on urban traffic control are not the only centres of expertise in the fields of highways and traffic management, and I should like to turn now to the question of the future of the other various expert teams. This has been a question that has gone wider than just highways and traffic. During the passage of the Bill through this House we debated at some length whether the arrangements made for specialist services and teams were sufficiently explicit, and we had the advantage of being informed by the interim report by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, produced under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.
  The Government took note of noble Lords' concern on this point and we concluded that noble Lords had identified an area where the provisions of the Bill needed to be strengthened. That is why the Government brought forward amendments at Report and Third Reading to impose an explicit duty on the residuary bodies to review the technical and professional services provided by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The services may include those provided by the teams maintaining urban traffic control systems, by engineering design teams—such as for bridges—and teams for data collection and analysis, including accident statistics and traffic modelling. The residuary bodies will have a duty to approach successor authorities to determine which of those services any of the authorities want the residuary bodies to maintain for their use while long-term arrangements are being made. The residuary bodies will then have a duty to report to the Secretary of State, who will make the necessary orders.
  My noble friend Lord Elton made it clear that that does not mean all professional and technical services will necessarily be transferred to residuary bodies. The successor authorities may wish to make alternative arrangements immediately rather than use the residuary bodies as a temporary home. I am convinced that most local authorities will come to an agreement

  513
  among themselves, and it is very important for them to have the opportunity to do so.
  In London, useful discussions with a number of boroughs have led to significant progress being made on working out future arrangements for services such as urban traffic control, data, and bridge engineering. The new duty on the residuary bodies will ensure that all services will be carefully and fully considered. For traffic and highways, this will ensure that urban traffic control systems, teams for collating and analysing data, and specialist engineering teams, will not disappear.
  The thought I would like to leave with noble Lords is that the Government have recognised the concerns that led to these two amendments being passed and have since introduced amendments to the Bill designed to meet the concerns of noble Lords. The Government do not believe that the amendments now under discussion provide a satisfactory solution for handling London or county-wide issues, or for ensuring that the necessary expertise remains available to all highways and traffic management authorities in any area.
  I have concentrated my remarks on what I see to be the fundamental issues underlying the amendments. I believe that the provisions of the Bill are not only in line with the transfer of powers to the boroughs and districts but also provide a more satisfactory framework for the future handling of traffic and highway functions. Noble Lords have played a valuable role in improving that framework. In the light of amendments that have been introduced at the instigation of noble Lords, I urge that the House do not insist on their amendments and resist the amendments in lieu proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in rising to support this amendment perhaps I may say that I am far from reassured by what has just been said by the noble Lord the Minister. It may be that your Lordships consider that the amendment that has been put before you by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is a better amendment than the one we had last time, in that the authority would consist of elected members of constituent borough councils and would be responsible for a London-wide view on strategic highway and traffic issues, while at the same time local needs would be catered for at the individual borough level.
  3.30 p.m.
  The noble Lord the Minister said that he could not understand the pessimism there was about the ability of borough or district councils to get together. History tells us that that is what is likely to happen. The political diversity between the people who are asked to co-operate simply leaves one to believe that, on an historical basis, it will not happen. The Government have obviously seen the need for integration on a London-wide basis and have stated this in their leaflet, After the GLC, but the abolition proposals provide no specific mechanism for such integration to occur. This omission has been criticised on all sides by professionals and by statutory and academic authorities. A joint authority would plug that gap.
  Secondly, it is important that there is strategic planning for London's main road network. As I said,
  514
  the idea that 33 individual boroughs will, by voluntary co-operation, get their act together at some unspecified time in the future is simply not good enough. The Government seem to have ignored to a degree the importance of London's metropolitan road network. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has said before, and said again today in different words, that the metropolitan network forms only 10 per cent. of the total mileage of roads in London and therefore can easily be absorbed into the individual boroughs. But the Government must be aware that the metropolitan network carries 40 per cent. of vehicle miles and consumes 55 per cent. of the total GLC and borough expenditure for highway construction. Therefore it is imperative that the network is planned in a coherent way.
  I now turn to my third point, which to me is the most important and, I am sure, more on the minds of the many people who supported it on all sides at earlier stages in our proceedings; that is, the importance of keeping these teams together, with their expertise in highway and traffic management. The noble Lord said that reassurance has been given in relation to urban traffic control, and of course we are grateful for that. It is very important that the urban traffic control systems should be kept together because, as we have said previously, they can save an enormous amount of cost in terms of new road construction, as has been seen both in the GLC and in the metropolitan counties.
  However, the way of doing this is to reserve powers to the Secretary of State, and it seems to me that the Secretary of State is going to be a terribly busy man in the next few years, in view of all the powers that are being given to him. Surely it would be better to have somebody on the ground in Greater London and the metropolitan counties who perhaps has more knowledge than the Secretary of State can bring to bear.
  I also take note of what the Minister said about the other teams: the highway planners with the experience of London's special needs and with knowledge of the cost-effective solutions for them. I refer to the teams of highway design engineers who are backed with the most sophisticated computer programmes in the world; the teams of maintenance engineers with special experience of large structures; and the teams of traffic specialists who have so effectively dealt with many of London's traffic problems, bad though they still are. But again the back-up is the Secretary of State. I repeat: I simply do not believe that the Secretary of State is capable of handling the mass of work which is being given to him.
  If that is in my mind, what, in the interim period, is in the minds of the individuals with these great skills? Will they not be looking for jobs elsewhere? I am certainly aware of a number of people both here and in the metropolitan counties who are already taking up other posts in private industry and with other lower-tier authorities outside their own areas. These teams are already breaking up, and in a sense the proof of what we are saying is already before our eyes.
  The London highways and traffic authority would provide a structure to ensure continuity. It is essential that these key teams should be given a clear indication of a secure future. They cannot be left with an

  515
  uncertain future; otherwise they will disperse and a great strategic resource will be lost to the country. I believe that this amendment improves the Bill. I believe that we were right on the previous occasion to pass the amendments that we passed. As I have said, I believe that this amendment may even be an improvement, and I hope that your Lordships will sustain it.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has such a beguiling method of speaking that he tends to lull the House—he certainly tends to lull me—into a feeling that this amendment really is not much of a change. However, your Lordships will recall that it is an amendment which goes against the whole spirit and purpose of the Bill, which has now been through both Houses, that wherever possible functions shall be transferred to the boroughs. It proposes to take these very important—I do not underrate their importance—traffic management problems into the second tier of a three-tier structure, and in that way to frustrate the general purpose of the Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was, I thought, unusually pessimistic. He said that the boroughs will not co-operate because, among other things, of political diversity. I wonder whether the noble Lord was being quite fair to the boroughs. On issues of this kind, which are largely technical and practical, I think the noble Lord will find that the boroughs, whether Conservative or Labour controlled, will try to act responsibly to carry out the functions which Parliament has conferred on them. They will not let the fact that they happen to disagree with the politics of the majority party in either of them frustrate them from doing their duty by their citizens.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? This is surely the problem—that there may be a conflict of interest between the electors in their own particular borough and the good of the conurbation. It is in those areas that conflict arises which is irresolvable save only by the Secretary of State.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if there is a conflict of interest in this kind of matter it is not a conflict of interest on general party lines. It will be the obvious and natural thing on the purely practical aspect of whether or not you want trunked a road which goes near your home. That is a very important issue to local people but it is not an issue which raises party political differences.
  I think it is unfair to the boroughs, to those of all parties who serve on them and to their officials to say that, because some boroughs have a majority of one political colour and other boroughs have another, they will not co-operate. The argument goes much further than that if the noble Lord is right. This idea of cooperation between the boroughs is fundamental to the whole Bill. If the noble Lord is right on this point the same arguments apply against all the other provisions in the Bill as they have been worked out and enacted after prolonged debates in both Houses of Parliament.
  Lord Gregson: Hear, hear!
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly honest about it. He agrees with me. It is contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill. There is no justification, I suggest to your Lordships, for picking out traffic management and treating it separately from the way in which Parliament in its wisdom has decided all the other functions at present exercised by the GLC or the metropolitan counties are to be exercised under the Bill. Whatever your view on a particular aspect, your Lordships must see that to introduce this one separate element of this overall authority will cause considerable confusion in practice and be thoroughly damaging to the general approach of the Bill.
  Your Lordships will not underrate what is proposed, which is to have a three-tier system in respect of traffic: the boroughs, this body corporate, and then the Secretary of State. Is there any justification for a three-tier system? Is there really any justification for the delays, the bureaucracy and the mass of correspondence to and fro which will result from that elaborate system? If there is, then I say to your Lordships that that is a criticism of the whole Bill.
  The Bill, if it is to work properly—as I think all your Lordships want to make sure it does, whatever the doubts that some of your Lordships opposite may have—must be consistent. If you erect this body corporate as an all-London authority which I understand would have precepting powers on the boroughs, you will create something completely out of line with the rest of the Bill. Therefore I think that the onus of proof falls on those of your Lordships who suggest that traffic management is so different from every other aspect of local government that it must be separately and differently treated, because Parliament in its wisdom has decided that the other functions, with the exception of waste disposal—and we will come to waste disposal in a moment—must be so treated.
  At an earlier stage of the Bill there was an obvious strategy by noble Lords opposite, who wished to preserve as much of the Greater London Council as possible, to pile functions on to the residuary body, no doubt with a view to saying ultimately that if the residuary body had so many functions if must become permanent and perhaps elective. That was the form in which the amendment, which another place dismissed, dealt with traffic. Perhaps prudently, after the failure of that exercise and that strategem, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, comes forward with this new proposal for a new corporate body. But it is really very hard to see anything other than confusion and expense coming from imposing this middle tier on to this one particular area of the government of Greater London and the metropolitan counties.
  In regard to Greater London, there is a further difficulty. The boundaries of the present Greater London Council area are quite arbitrary. Nowadays they do not even coincide with the limits of the built-up area of London, and it is of course essential that the London traffic system should be geared in properly to that of virtually the whole of the south-east of England. It is no use having fine access roads up to the London perimeter unless they fit into access roads beyond it. In this amendment it is not proposed, and indeed without a crude intervention in the affairs of

  517
  other local authorities outside London it could not be proposed, that this corporate body should have such powers. The only person who can take the view as to how you are going to fit together all the traffic of south-east England, which is what we are really concerned with, is the Secretary of State. Only he can take an overall view. Introducing a middle tier into the other two tiers of traffic control in local government in London will simply produce a mess. Therefore I hope your Lordships will reject the amendment.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should have thought that the proposals of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, despite what the noble Lord who has just spoken has said, are so congruous with what the Bill is trying to do that they really result in a better idea than we have yet had to make this Bill work. Indeed, it would not be wrong to say that without this amendment the Bill will create difficulties. It would possibly be fair to say that because of this amendment it will be a better Bill than it is at the moment, and that is what I believe noble Lords opposite have to consider.
  We have been through all this before. I can remember, as a leader of the Fulham and Hammersmith councils, when transport was our major problem, that the boroughs simply had to liaise with each other. You cannot have a transport policy for Fulham by itself, for Hammersmith by itself or indeed for Westminster by itself. It you try to do that you will arrive at the absurd situation of having agreed with the noble Viscount the leader of the Conservative Party in this House. I think that this is something which we have to take seriously.
  As I said initially, we have been through this before. For example, there were problems when we had the LCC and it was realised that people were not quite sure when they had left Chelsea and were in Kensington, or when they had left Kensington and were in Fulham, and so forth. It was fundamental that the London boroughs knew precisely the last—or the first—street in their boroughs, and the only way to have a sensible and intelligent transport policy was not to have one for any individual borough but to have a policy which covered all London as a whole—and it worked. I had the privilege, being a representative of those boroughs as a Member in the other place, of seeing both Conservative and Labour Ministers of Transport, with leaders or deputy leaders of councils and members of both parties, work out the changes that were necessary to get a reasonable and cohesive policy for Greater London. The problems of the City of Westminster are still enormous, but the problems ease out as you go further down towards the south, as has been said.
  The next issue that caused us grave apprehension was when it was decided by the Conservative Government of the day that the LCC would be abolished. This caused great worries and there were many improvements put into that Bill later, because of debates in this House as well as in the other place, that made it a good Bill. When representations were made to him, Sir Keith Joseph agreed that you had to have some central force of organisation—of course it would be best if it were made up of elected councillors, with
  518
  one or two specialists to assist them—to be able to run a sensible, intelligent, cohesive policy for the new body. He was converted. I do not think that anyone would say that Sir Keith Joseph did not stand by the proposals of his party and his Government. He was sensible enough to know when they could be improved upon, and he accepted improvements when they were proposed to him by councillors of all parties from London.
  There is one other point that I shall ask noble Lords to bear in mind very strongly in considering when this new Act will come into force. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned that we are losing men and women of high calibre, who in some instances have already devoted half their lives to transport problems in the metropolitan boroughs as well as in the Greater London Council, and this would be one move to ensure that these talents are not lost.
  In short, I take the view that the amendment moved by my noble friend keeps within the object and design of the Bill. In parenthesis I ask noble Lords in all parts of the House this question: could there exist in Britain a Government who could introduce a Bill proposing massive change and then have the audacity to say that not one single amendment is needed to make it a better Bill? That is the challenge this afternoon. That is what we must consider. It is not a political issue. Conservative councillors, and indeed some former leaders of Conservative councils, also believe that this is sensible. The amendment would improve the Bill and cannot be viewed in any way as political, but it represents good sense and good judgment. I disapprove of the Bill, but I believe that this is a typical British attitude: one can improve another party's Bill. If the Government have good sense they will accept that, as long as the amendment has no political slant.
  I do not believe for one moment that the amendment has even surreptitiously any political intent or content. The amendment is designed so that when the new organisations are created, in the first place, we shall not lose the men and women of high calibre who will be needed to make a success of this part of the Bill when it becomes law. At the same time, approving the amendment would be a response by this House to the desires and intentions of councillors of all parties to see that the Bill is improved in the manner indicated by my noble friend.
  Lord Somers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke with great conviction, as he always does, although at the end of his speech I felt a little doubtful as to what it was he was being so convincing about. One point emerged. He felt that the amendment was completely contrary to the spirit of the Bill. Does that make it wrong?
  The spirit of the Bill is not, as one might say, of divine authority; the spirit of the Bill may be entirely wrong. I am not saying that all through it is, but after eight weary days of the Committee stage and five equally weary days of the Report stage, we came to the conclusion that certain things in London must be under overall control. After all, London is a whole. One cannot divide it into a lot of boroughs without considering certain things which must apply to the whole of London. Traffic and road control is most certainly one of those. I think that any idea as to

  519
  whether it is contrary to the spirit of the Bill to accept the amendment should be put on one side and one thought should occupy our minds solely: is it an improvement on the original provision?
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope that it is in order respectfully to remind the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in view of something that he said, that, as I understand it, no fewer than 75 out of 98 of your Lordships' amendments were accepted in another place. Had he attended throughout the debates on the Bill, he would perhaps have appreciated the measure of concession from my noble friend the Minister.
  The Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, as I understand it, covers two amendments. The first is Amendment No. 4B, which seeks to set up the third tier in yet another form, to which the boroughs, as I read it, "shall have regard", with consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 8A and 21A. It also covers Amendment No. 5A, which seeks to insist on Amendment No. 5, which was disagreed to. The effect of that is inevitably to engender possible conflict with another place—a conflict which at this stage of our proceedings, for all one knows, could well end up with the dissolution of Parliament and a killed Bill.
  It is certainly not my purpose to reopen the arguments on the merits which have been dealt with already. Some of your Lordships may feel that we have already indulged—indeed, over-indulged—in the arduous toil of extravagant repetitions. Many of us, however, irrespective of where we choose to sit and of such reservations as we maintain, would prefer to avoid such a conflict between the two Houses at all costs, perhaps with a sprinkling of indigenous give and take—in other words, compromise—in the higher purpose of avoiding further dispute.
  In this, if ILEA is to serve as the bartered bride to highways, traffic, and waste disposal, your Lordships are entitled—no more, no less—to be satisfied that the dowry arrangement is fair and reasonable; a dowry arrangement seen as a whole and not any particular item or aspect seen in isolation. As to reasonableness, surely that has to be seen in context not only with the concessions made by my noble friend the Minister throughout the passage of the Bill but also with the vast measure of agreement in another place to which I have already referred.
  As to the issue of conflict between the two Houses, surely that has to be seen in context with the reason for disagreement given in the other place—Reason 21—which was "inconsistent with the principle of the Bill". There is not only that; there is the sheer impossibility of the task of the revision entailed in the time available before the end of this Session of Parliament.
  Of course there is ample constitutional precedent for shuttlecock. There are even established rules of the game. But even if we play that game according to the rules, we shall be seen not only to thwart the will of another place but to introduce wanton turmoil and confusion into the administration of local government.
  520
  A reasonable compromise is proposed by the elected Chamber. To what end shall the non-elected Chamber now importune the gods and presume to tempt the fates with measures of all but immutable preconception?
  Lord Molloy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he will be gracious enough to examine Hansard, where he will discover that I have not missed a single debate on the Bill? This is the first time that I have spoken, but I do not think that I have missed any Divisions. Perhaps he will be gracious enough to check those points.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, since the noble Lord mentioned my name, perhaps I may be allowed to say that if he was present, I am all the more surprised at what he said a few moments ago.
  Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wish very briefly to comment on only two remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his interesting earlier speech. He said not once but I think twice that Parliament in its wisdom had made certain decisions. That is not quite right. Parliament in its wisdom has not yet decided. One part of Parliament and one part only in its wisdom has made a decision. Another place had made certain proposals in the Bill which came to this House where these proposals were examined and in part amended. The amendments went back. They have been criticised and sometimes rejected. We are now considering what another place has made of our proposals.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way?
  Lord Howie of Troon: Certainly.
  Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the point that I was seeking to make, and which I hoped the noble Lord had understood, was that over the greater part of the Bill Parliament has concluded its discussions. The only issues open are those that arise on those of our amendments which are sent back. The point of my argument was that the main pattern of the Bill has already been decided upon by Parliament.
  Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, yes, that must be true, but I thought it was hardly worth mentioning today. The part of the Bill which is before us is the part upon which we have not decided. Thus the noble Lord's remark was inessential. We have not decided. Parliament has not decided, and Parliament is now deciding. There is no reason why we should not dissent from the other House, whether we are elected or nonelected.
  The other part of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which I noted—and I hope I shall not irritate him this time—came when he said that the principle of the Bill was that, wherever possible, functions should be passed to the lower authorities. However, that is not the principle of the Bill. Nor is the principle of the Bill that which another place states it to be in its Reason No. 21. That Reason

  521
  does not include the phrase "wherever possible" but states merely that most of the functions should pass from the Greater London Council to lesser authorities. If the amendment of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove is accepted, most of the functions will pass and the principle of the Bill will be totally intact. Therefore that question does not arise.
  I have only one more thing to say in conclusion. It is that those who propose this Motion and those of us who support it have no intention of thwarting the will of the elected Chamber, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, put it. That is not our intention at all. The situation is quite a simple one. After a lengthy period of discussion, debate, consideration and consultation with all kinds of outside bodies a situation has arisen in which this noble assembly takes one view, or has taken one view, and another place has taken a somewhat different view. The proposal before us today seems to me a very sensible and a very sound one; namely, that we should seek as far as we can to reconcile these two differing views, to seek some kind of compromise between them. I think that reconciliation and compromise are absolutely central to the Motion proposed by my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I hope that this House will pass it.
  The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, we have this afternoon had a short, important debate about the merits of this issue. My noble friend Lord Brabazon has given what I believe to be a powerful account of the reasons why the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, is unacceptable. Your Lordships will not wish me to go over that same ground again.
  However, before I come to something else that I wish to say to your Lordships, naturally I shall seek briefly to deal with some of the main points raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, moved his amendments in a most reasonable way, as I, through a long association with him in another place, have come to expect. I have to say to the noble Lord that so reasonable was he that he might very easily, had he gone on, have converted simple souls such as me. It was not until I heard my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that I realised that I must come back from my simplicity and look at what was really behind his proposals. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for that. It was important.
  I have to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—and I want to come very specifically to the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I would not necessarily refer to the "spirit" of the Bill, but I think that now, as the Bill stands—and we are considering the amendment against the background of where the Bill now stands—the noble Lord's proposals would be inconsistent with the method of dealing with a good many of the other proposals.
  This House may have made mistakes. The Government may have won on some of the issues when perhaps noble Lords think that they should not have won. However, they did, and the Bill now stands
  522
  in that regard. If one changed this particular proposal, I believe it would indeed be inconsistent with what else is in the Bill. That is a very important point which was made also by my noble friend Lord Brabazon.
  I should like to turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. First of all, he fears that the specialist teams might be upset. He makes a very important point. It is one which I certainly believe has been dealt with, is being dealt with and, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon made perfectly clear, will be dealt with. Of course, in a situation such as this a great deal of understanding and compromise will be necessary, but I do not think that the noble Lord should be so pessimistic about that.
  I believe, too, that the noble Lord was overworried about the position of the Secretary of State. As the Secretary of State is responsible for very major matters covering the whole country, the area covered by highways and transport in the London conurbation must be something which is bound to concern him. Matters concerning the overall position in that very large area are bound to come to the Secretary of State. I think that that will be inevitable.
  The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, seemed at one stage to be coming to my aid, and I am very grateful to him. He seemed to be doing so in two ways. I shall come to the second one later. On the first one he was powerfully coming to my aid. He said that when he was conducting these matters—and I am sure that if he told us that it was when he was conducting them, that would be right—when, from another place, he was co-ordinating between the boroughs, all worked very well. Well, if it worked so well before, and if all the planning worked and the co-operation was so satisfactory when organised by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, why should it not continue in the future? It seemed to me that the noble Lord was encouraging us to believe that if the boroughs would get together and co-operate as they did with him, all would be well. I rather think that that makes the case that I was making.
  Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for giving way. The point I was making—and I am glad that he agrees with me—was that I represented the nucleus, the idea—which is now part of the amendment moved by my noble friend—which later became a reality.
  Viscount Whitelaw: Do not let us spoil this sudden friendship. I did not quite understand the noble Lord to have said just exactly that. However, perhaps that was my lack of recognition of his arguments.
  My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made the point that I have re-emphasised—that this proposal, coming as it does at this time in the Bill, would not be consistent with many of the other proposals for other matters which we have already passed. I do not think that proposition really can be successfully disputed.
  The second point that he made is that we were going to impose a three-tier system. And why should we, in this case, impose a three-tier system? Again, that is a very powerful point that is hard to dispute. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, both covered some ground to which I think it would be appropriate for me, as

  523
  Leader of your Lordships' House, to refer now. Before doing so, I want to show, as I think I can show, why I believe that there are important considerations which your Lordships should consider in coming to your very proper decision in resolving how to act on these particular amendments this afternoon. My remarks concern both of the amendments and the treatment of both.
  In winding up the Second Reading debate, I accepted on behalf of the Government the important part that your Lordships' House had to play in the process of getting right the detailed aspects of this much needed change. I said then that my colleagues and I on this Bench were very ready to listen closely to the views of this House on such matters, although I also said—and I think many noble Lords would accept this as unarguable—that the Government must stand on matters of principle on a Bill to which they were so clearly committed. That was exactly three months ago. Since then, your Lordships have subjected the Bill to as thorough a scrutiny as any Bill has received in this House for many years.
  This is the nineteenth day on which the Bill has been before your Lordships. I hope that your Lordships in all parts of the House will agree that, throughout the course of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill, my noble friends and I have honoured my undertaking that we would listen to the views of this House. Indeed, I have been very pleased to hear the many tributes paid to the patient and understanding way in which my noble friend Lord Elton has handled the Bill.
  During the hard-fought proceedings on this Bill, the Government suffered four defeats. Your Lordships will have noticed that the Government advised another place to accept the decision of this House on two of these, that concerning reports on the countryside and the power to make changes to the Inner London Education Authority by order. I would suggest to your Lordships that the latter was a most important concession to the House.
  On the defeat concerning waste disposal, the Government made amendments in another place designed to go some way to meet anxieties expressed in your Lordships' House. From what I read in the Order Paper, this conciliatory move does not appear to have been wholly accepted, but I must stress, and stress again, that it was made in good faith. Only on this one amendment which we are now discussing did the Government seek and obtain powerful support in another place for standing on their original position—certainly, as a matter of principle to this Bill.
  No fair-minded person could even pretend to regard such an attitude as that of a dictatorial Government with a large majority in another place riding roughshod over your Lordships' House. On the contrary, it represents a co-operative and understanding approach, not always, or even often, followed by Governments in the past on highly controversial measures. But, my Lords, that is not all. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that a large number of amendments were made to the Bill in this House, a good number of them introduced by the Government to meet points made by noble Lords. As the noble Lord says that he was here all the time, no
  524
  doubt he observed that some of these amendments, indeed a very large number of them, were made during the passage of the Bill.
  4.15 p.m.
  Among the principal of these was provision for a joint committee of representatives from the London boroughs to consider matters of common interest as regards planning and development in Greater London. Provisions were also included to smooth the transition to the new arrangements for trading standards, with a reserve power to establish joint authorities if necessary. The co-ordinating committees and residuary bodies are to have a role in safeguarding valuable expertise and specialist teams—a matter very properly referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on this amendment.
  On the position of charitable organisations, I believe your Lordships welcome the steps to extend the transitional aid for them, to endow a trust, and to augment the duties on those making collective schemes so that they must have regard to the needs of the whole area and keep the arrangements under review. These are all matters on which we have listened, and indeed acted. In our response, the Government have surely demonstrated that we have fully respected the traditional role of this House as a revising chamber.
  In addition, on the two disagreements before us today, this House has given another place the opportunity to think again, a further important part of its traditional role. On this amendment that other place has reinforced its original position, I repeat on a matter of firm principle in the Bill. On the next one, concerning waste disposal, it has made a change in an effort to meet your Lordships' anxieties.
  It is no part of my case to suggest for one moment that those of your Lordships who still feel strongly opposed to these amendments would be acting in any way unconstitutionally or even against the precedents if they decided to press their objections. I am sometimes not so unwise as I seem. On this occasion, I have not neglected a study of exchanges and votes in the past with Governments and Oppositions of all parties.
  But, my Lords, I do feel that the results of the Government's constructive attitude which I have outlined entitles me to ask your Lordships at this stage to recognise what this House has already achieved and so not to press any objections further. For these reasons, therefore, and because, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon so fully explained, the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is wholly inapproprate to the scheme of the Bill, I ask your Lordships to reject it.
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is a long time since the noble Viscount and I wound up the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. It seems even longer, as those who have taken an active part in the Committee and Report stages would agree. It was clear on Second Reading that there were profound disagreements about practical aspects of the Bill. These were shared by noble Lords in all parts of the House. We all recall that these doubts came to the surface time and time again as the Bill progressed, and some sensible and necessary changes were made by

  525
  this House. Personally, I should like to have seen more changes. But we can be satisfied that we carried out our function as a revising chamber. I shall return to this in a moment. I believe I can say, however, that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House shares this view; namely, that this House did no more than its duty during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill.
  We are grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining the Government's reaction to the four major amendments carried by this House. There were, of course, other substantial concessions which the Government made in the course of the debates and the noble Viscount has referred to them—for example, planning, housing, trading standards, civil defence, the arts, voluntary grants and so on. I think that, in all, some 90 amendments to the Bill were made in this Chamber. That is a remarkable tribute to those who took part in the debates from all sides of the House.
  However, we are now concerned with the four major changes. Here again, I welcome the fact that, as indicated by the noble Viscount, the Government have accepted two of them; namely, those on education and conservation. However, the Government have reversed the decisions of this House on highways and on waste disposal.
  At this stage there are two points to be considered and they are of great importance. First, on the merits of the argument, are the Government justified in resisting the two changes in question, and, secondly, would this House be justified in insisting that the Government should think again about the two issues? The noble Viscount touched on the two points, but I want to deal with them in a rather different way.
  My noble friend Lord Carmichael has made a powerful case for adhering to the decision of this House on highway and traffic functions. I believe that the Government have been in a muddle on this matter since the start. What my noble friend now proposes in his new amendment is far closer to the Government's own manifesto. In fact, these amendments maintain the local democratic control of roads and traffic. They have very real advantages over the Government's own proposals. Furthermore, as my noble friend has said, his amendment very effectively met the criticism about the distinction between the highways and traffic amendment for the GLC and the MCCs.
  The message from the other place, that the amendment is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill—and this has been repeated again today by more than one speaker on the other side—really does not hold water. Joint boards are one of the central ingredients of the Bill. They are extolled and defended by Mr. Nicholas Ridley, and the noble Viscount himself said in Committee that the establishment of strategic highway authorities is not a fundamental change in the Bill. I think that the case is unanswerable and, despite his undoubted skill, the noble Viscount has not been able to answer it. The noble Viscount has great qualities which we all admire, but he is not "the simple soul" that he described himself to be. In these circumstances, therefore, it would be against the public interest if we were to concede the case to the Government, and that public interest has been fully described in the report of the Select Committee of this House.
  526
  My second point—and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to this in his speech—is that we are told that we shall be resisting the will of the Commons. I am very sensitive to this point. The Commons is the elected Chamber and it is the primary Chamber, and we must not forget that. On the other hand, the Parliament Acts ensure that, with their majority in the Commons, the Government can prevail in the end. We are asking the Government to pause and to think again in the light of the argument and the new amendment moved by my noble friend.
  The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, supported this view on more than one occasion, and he had the total backing of noble Lords opposite. He said:
  "In our system we have hitherto taken the view that the will of the elected House must in the end prevail, but that there should be a second House which has the opportunity—in rare cases, perhaps—to enforce a delay in which there can be a reassessment by Government, by Parties and by the people of this country of the rights or wrongs of an issue. If now we decide to use that very limited power, we are not thwarting the will of the people for, in so far as it is represented by the House of Commons, it will and must prevail in a comparatively short space of time".—[Official Report, 11/11/75; col. 1742.]
  Indeed, it is because during the last few years this House has carried out those very duties in that spirit it is more respected in the country than it has been for many decades past. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and also with the noble Viscount himself when he said on 6th November last that he believed that this House has the duty to make the Government think again. If the Government wish to curtail the powers of this House still further and to amend the Parliament Acts accordingly, that must be a matter for them to decide. However, under the Constitution as it stands, I believe that we also have the duty and right to urge the Government to think again.
  Finally, let me say this. We do not like this Bill. We do not like the way in which the Government have handled this Bill from the start. Nevertheless, we recognise that it will be on the statute book very soon. We also strongly believe that these and the following amendments would improve the Bill significantly in the interests of the people of this country, and we therefore ask the House to support them in the Lobby.
  4.26 p.m.
  On Question, That this House do not insist on Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 4B in lieu thereof.
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 217.

  DIVISION NO.1

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Birkett, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Blyton, L.

  Ardwick, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Bottomley, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Briginshaw, L.

  Bacon, B.

  Brockway, L.

  Banks, L.

  Buckmaster, V.

  Barnett, L.

  Burton of Coventry, B

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Caradon, L.

  Bernstein, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Chitnis, L.

  Birk, B.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  527

  Collison, L.

  Mayhew, L.

  Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

  Milford, L.

  Darcy (de Knayth), B.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Darling of Hillsborough, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Darwen, L.

  Molloy, L.

  David, B.

  Monkswell, L.

  Davies of Penrhys, L.

  Monson, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Morris of Kenwood, L.

  Denington, B.

  Morton of Shuna, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Mulley, L.

  Elwyn-Jones, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Ennals, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Esher, V.

  Northfield, L.

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Oram, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Peart, L.

  Falkender, B.

  Phillips, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Fisher of Rednal, B.

  Plant, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

  Foot, L.

  Gaitskell, B.

  Porritt, L.

  Gallacher, L.

  Reilly, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Glenamara, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Gormley, L.

  Ross of Marnock, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Russell of Liverpool, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Grey, E.

  Scanlon, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Seear, B.

  Hanworth, V.

  Seebohm, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Hayter, L.

  Serota, B.

  Henderson of Brompton, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Heycock, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Shinwell, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Silkin of Dulwich, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Simon, V.

  Hughes, L.

  Somers, L.

  Hunt, L.

  Soper, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Stallard, L.

  Ingleby, V.

  Stamp, L.

  Irving of Dartford, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Jacobson, L.

  Stewart of Fulham, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Stone, L.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Kagan, L.

  Strauss, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Swann, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Taylor of Mansfield, L.

  Kissin, L.

  Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

  Lawrence, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Walston, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

  White, B.

  Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Wilson of Langside, L.

  Longford, E.

  Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  McNair, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  Mais, L.

  Wootton of Abinger, B.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Airey of Abingdon, B.

  Beloff, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Alport, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Annan, E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Arran, E.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Astor, V.

  Brentford, V.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Bauer, L.

  Brocket, L.

  Beaverbrook, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  528

  Broxbourne, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Bruce-Gardyne, L.

  Home of the Hirsel, L.

  Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

  Hood, V.

  Hooper, B.

  Burton, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Butterworth, L.

  Ironside, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Kaberry of Adel, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Kemsley, V.

  Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

  Killearn, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Kilmany, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Camock, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Cathcart, E.

  Kitchener, E.

  Cayzer, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Chelmer, L.

  Lane-Fox, B.

  Chelwood, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Layton, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Loch, L.

  Constantine of Stanmore, L.

  Long, V.

  Cowley, E.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Cox, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  McFadzean, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

  Craigton, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Cross, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Marley, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Marsh, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

  Denman, L.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Melville, V.

  Donegall, M.

  Merrivale, L.

  Dormer, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Molson, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Mottistone, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Moyola, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Nathan, L.

  Elles, B.

  Newall, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Norfolk, D.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

  Elton, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

  Peel, E.

  Ferrier, L.

  Pender, L.

  Fisher, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Portland, D.

  Forte, L.

  Quinton, L.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Freyberg, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Reay, L.

  Gibson-Watt, L.

  Renton, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Rochdale, V.

  Gowrie, E.

  Romney, E.

  Gray, L.

  Rootes, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Ryder of Warsaw, B.

  Gridley, L.

  Sackville, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Haig, E.

  St. Davids, V.

  Hailsham of Saint

  Salisbury, M.

  Marylebone, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Halifax, E.

  Sandford, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Savile, L.

  Hanson, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Harvington, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Henley, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Hertford, M.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Hives, L.

  Southborough, L.

  529

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Sudeley, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Vestey, L.

  Swinton, E. [Teller.]

  Vivian, L.

  Terrington, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

  Wigram, L.

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Wise, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Townshend, M.

  Yarborough, E.

  Tranmire, L.

  Young of Graffham, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
  4.37 p.m.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 21. I hope that this Motion will be agreed to formally.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 21.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  5 Before Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
  ("Strategic Highway Functions in Metropolitan Counties.
  . The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the authority established by section 27 of this Act for each metropolitan county to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in that county to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

  (a) the functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to principal roads within the county;

  (b) the functions of a county council and a highway authority for the purpose of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to principal roads within the county;

  (c) issuing guidance as to the manner in which in relation to non principal roads the councils of metropolitan districts should exercise their powers under the 1984 Act, for the purpose of ensuring that the exercise by such councils of those traffic powers in relation to non principal roads does not have an adverse effect on traffic or any class of traffic using principal roads within the county or any traffic or class of traffic in any area other than the area of the district council, as the case may be;

  (d) the functions relating to the construction and maintenance of bridges within the county which on that date are the responsibility of the highway authority;

  (e) the functions contained in the Road Traffic Acts 1972 and 1974 in so far as the same relate to road safety within the county; and

  (f) the collection, examination, analysis and dissemination of data required for the discharge of those functions.").

  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovehad given notice of his intention to move, as Motion 5A, That this House do insist on their amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 21
  [Reason No. 21: printed earlier.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the decision just reached by the House, I do not intend to move Motion No. 5A.
  [Motion No. 5A not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  6 Clause 7, page 4, line 3, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 7 and insert ("give effect to the transfer of functions relating to those matters—

  (a) from the Greater London Council—

  (i) in part to the London residuary body; and

  (ii) in part to the London borough councils and the common council; and

  (b) from the metropolitan county councils—

  (i) in part to the metropolitan county strategic transportation authorities; and

  (ii) in part to the metropolitan district councils.").

  7 Page 4, line 13, leave out from second ("the") to ("and") in line 15 and insert ("metropolitan county strategic transportation authorities and London residuary authority.").
  8 Page 4, line 19, leave out from ("metropolitan") to end of line 23 and insert ("county strategic transportation authorities and London Residuary Body;").
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovehad given notice of his intention to move, as Motions 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D, That this House do not insist on their amendments No. 6 to 8 to which the Commons disagree for the Reason numbered 21 but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
  8B Page 4, line 3, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 7 and insert ("give effect to the transfer of functions relating to those matters—

  (a) from the Greater London Council—

  (i) in part to the London Highways and Traffic Authority; and

  (ii) in part to the London borough councils and the common council; and

  (b) from the metropolitan county councils—

  (i) in part to the metropolitan county strategic transportation authorities; and

  (ii) in part to the metropolitan district councils.")

  8C Page 4, line 13, leave out from second ("the") to ("and") in line 15 and insert ("metropolitan county strategic transportation authorities and London Highways and Traffic Authority.")
  8D Page 4, line 19, leave out from ("metropolitan") to end of line 23 and insert ("county strategic transportation authorities and London Highways and Traffic Authority.").
  [Reason No. 21: printed earlier.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, as in the case of Motion No. 5A, I do not propose to move Motion 8A.
  (Motion No. 8A not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  9 Clause 27, page 18, line 18, leave out ("Passenger").
  10 Page 18, line 19, leave out ("Transport") and insert ("Strategic Transportation").
  11 Page 18, line 20, leave out ("passenger").
  12 Page 18, line 20, leave out ("transport") and insert ("strategic transportation").
  13 Page 18, line 21, leave out ("passenger").
  14 Page 18, line 21, leave out ("transport") and insert ("strategic transportation").
  15 Page 18, line 23, leave out ("passenger").
  16 Page 18, line 23, leave out ("transport") and insert ("strategic transportation").
  17 Page 18, line 27, leave out ("passenger").
  18 Page 18, line 27, leave out ("transport") and insert ("strategic transportation").
  19 Clause 38, page 24, line 17, leave out ("passenger").
  20 Page 24, line 18, leave out ("transport") and insert ("strategic transportation").
  The Commons disagree to amendments 5 to 20 for the following Reason (No. 21):
  Because they are inconsistent with the principle of the Bill to transfer most of the functions of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils to the local authorities in their areas.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrovehad given notice of his intention to move, as Motion 21 A, That this House do insist on their amendments Nos. 9 to 20 to which the Commons disagreed for the Reason numbered 21.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I do not propose to move Motion 21A.
  [Motion No. 21A not moved.]
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 5 to 20, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 21.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos 5 to 20, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 21.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  22 Clause 9, page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("( ) On the appointed day there shall be established in Greater London and each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of the London Waste Disposal Authority or by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Waste Disposal Authority", as the case may be.
  ( ) Each authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
  ( ) The constituent councils in relation to the London Waste Disposal Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
  ( ) The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan waste disposal authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.
  ( ) Each authority shall be a joint authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act and the provisions of that Part shall apply to this section as if this section were included in that Part.
  ( ) The functions specified in subsection (2) below shall be discharged by the authority in respect of the area for which it is established.").
  The Commons disagree to the above amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
  23 Page 4, line 37, leave out ("authorities") and insert ("councils").
  24 Page 4, line 42, after ("purpose") insert ("before 15th November 1985").
  25 Page 5, line 3, leave out ("that") and insert ("the abolition").
  26 Page 5, line 4, leave out ("may, after consulting the authorities concerned,") and insert ("shall").
  27 Page 5, line 8, at end insert—
  ("(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to the need for satisfactory arrangements in respect of hazardous waste.
  (1B) No person shall be a member of an authority established by an order under subsection (1) above unless he is a member of one of the councils for whose areas the authority is established; and any such order may make provision for enabling the Secretary of State to require the authority established by the order to submit to him a scheme for the winding-up of the authority and the transfer to those councils of its functions, property, staff, rights and liabilities.").
  Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to move as Motion No. 27A, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 22 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Motion 27A: If the House agrees to it, I shall formally move my second Motion, Motion 31A, since it is consequential. If Motion 27A is peradventure disagreed to, I shall not then be moving to the consequential Motion.
  Motion No. 31 A: That this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 31.
  I believe it would help if I were to start by recalling briefly the history of this subject. When the Bill was sent from another place to this House it provided for the devolution of waste disposal to borough and district councils with a reserve power by Government to establish for all, or part, of an area a single authority. When this was debated at the Committee stage in this House on 9th May in a debate vigorously led by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, strong arguments were advanced from all sides for the establishment from the start of single waste disposal authorities in Greater London and in each of the metropolitan areas. This was carried by a majority of vote.
  It is with this amendment that another place disagreed on 8th July. The Government, however, in the course of the debate in the other place put forward certain modifications to their original proposals. The first modification was that the date for the exercise of reserve power by the Secretary of State was put back from September to 15th November. Secondly, in the event of any statutory body being set up as a result of this reserve power being exercised, these bodies would be required to submit within a reasonably short time proposals for the devolution of their functions to their constituent councils. Thirdly, there would be separate arrangements on a wider basis to deal with hazardous waste and non-operational matters. It is with these revised arrangements that we now have to deal and we need to decide whether we consider these are satisfactory. I will now advance a number of reasons why I consider that they are not satisfactory and that your Lordships should insist on our original amendment.
  Let me first deal with technical reasons. In the debate in this House on 9th May, the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, chairman of the Select Committee on Hazardous Waste, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, chairman of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, advanced strong arguments for maintaining strategic bodies to deal with the question of waste at county level. The main reason why they put forward these proposals is the process that we have developed almost uniquely in this country for the co-disposal of hazardous waste. I read very carefully what was said in the debate in another place when our amendment was rejected. Not a single word was said about this issue. But it is a crucial issue. If I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, he said:
  "The great bulk of liquid hazardous waste is co-disposed with domestic waste on the principle of dilute and disperse".
  It follows that there can be no separation between the disposal of normal, domestic waste and liquid waste if this successful process, pioneered in this country, is to be continued with. The problem of dividing up these functions is therefore crucial to our understanding of

  533
  this problem. I should like to insist therefore that for technical reasons we should have a single control at regional level of the disposal of all waste.
  Let me turn now, secondly, to financial reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in the previous debate referred to the Coopers and Lybrand report of 1984. That illustrious firm of accountants also studied the question of waste disposal and said this:
  "The metropolitan county councils have established integrated networks for waste disposal across major conurbations. This enables facilities to be better used and costs reduced. The resurrection of local administrative boundaries would increase costs".
  I do not wish to quote any further from their report. What this world-famous firm of accountants said was that costs would be minimised by the present arrangement and increased by any alternative arrangement.
  Thirdly, let me turn to commercial reasons why your Lordships' amendment should be sustained. There is grave concern among all waste disposal contractors about what could happen if the latest proposals reaching us from another place were to become effective. I have here a letter dated 11th July 1985 from the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, which is the trade association of that body, and the Institute of Waste Management, which is the professional association of that body. They say:
  "The situation, if anything, appears to be worse than the original Bill after the House of Commons considered the Lords' amendment last Monday and we thought that you would wish to be apprised of the situation".
  They conclude:
  "The situation we find ourselves in does not meet the reservations expressed in the House of Lords. Neither does it meet with the approval of the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors and the Institute of Waste Management".
  4.45 p.m.
  This very morning I have received a letter from Mr. Martin Laing who is the chairman of John Laing PLC, one of the leading contractors and constructional companies in this country. This is what he said:
  "We were pleased to hear in May 1985 of the House of Lords' proposed modifications of the Government's proposals with respect to the control of solid waste disposal by a regional body. As contractors, we feel that the regional concept of waste disposal would provide the most effective and efficient means of control ensuring a continuing development of the best strategic policy for a given metropolitan area".
  He concludes:
  "We write to confirm our support for the original amendment which we believe would have best served the interests not only of the citizens in the areas concerned but of industry at large and particularly capital works".
  Next I should like to talk about the organisational reasons why the amendment in another place should not be acceptable to us. A great deal of uncertainty has been created as a result of the date on which the Secretary of State has to decide whether or not to institute statutory bodies. Originally this date was set for July 1984. Then it was changed to February 1985 and then it was changed to September 1985—on which we received an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Elton—and now we are told that it is to be 15th November 1985. What is worse is that, if the Secretary of State should decide upon the creation of statutory bodies, one of the first things that these statutory
  534
  bodies would have to do is to decide on the devolution of their responsibilities; so that situation of uncertainty is further compounded.
  I am sorry to have to say this but I think that what is proposed is an organisational nightmare; that there can be no certainty as to what is to come and that the centres of excellence, to which much praise has been paid by the various professional and other bodies, including your Lordships' Select Committees, will not know whether they are coming or going; and, regrettably, what they are most likely to do is to go. Therefore, I feel that organisationally what is now proposed leaves very much to be desired. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think that the proposals that we now have before us equally leave much to be desired in strategic thinking.
  With the uncertainty about the organisations that are to be set up, the uncertainty of the relationship with the private sector contractors and the uncertainty with the staff, it is very difficult to see how any coherent strategic policy can be worked out in regard to this most important issue. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we are now talking about seven million tonnes of waste being disposed of by the authorities concerned, and of course that will grow in time; and in addition there will be the best part of a million tonnes of hazardous waste. This is very big business indeed.
  I add to that concern the views of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, whose chairman, Sir Richard Southwood, warned that boroughs and districts which might in future be charged with these responsibilities if the Government's proposals go through, might well ignore the best environmental options because of local pressures.
  I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, what is to happen to that very important document on the future of waste disposal which was prepared by the GLC at the request of Government, and which was entitled, No Time to Waste. It was published in 1984 and went up to the year 2003, and it was prepared as a result of the closest possible consultation with all parties concerned. Is that now to go by the board and is all that time to be wasted?
  In conclusion, I should like to say that it seems to me that there is absolutely overwhelming evidence why, for technological reasons, for financial reasons, for commercial reasons and for organisational and strategic reasons, your Lordships should reaffirm the views previously expressed. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, and do disagree with Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill. —(Lord Ezra.)
  Baroness Birk: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion moved in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I think I must start by saying that we are considering now something entirely different from the Motion we have just considered on highways and transport. They are both very important Motions, but I think it is only fair to view them entirely differently and to look at the reasons why we believe that these amendments that were made by your Lordships should be insisted on.

  535
  The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, when referring to waste disposal, said that the Government made amendments in another place in good faith. I am not questioning that good faith at all; what I am questioning is the efficacy, durability, efficiency and economy of the amendments which were put in place of what was sent by your Lordships.
  To start with, waste disposal was quite inadequately discussed in another place. It came under the guillotine and in fact was discussed for just over 45 minutes. When it was before your Lordships' Committee it was discussed for about three hours, and I think that the vote in favour of the amendment was the largest vote on any of the different amendments here in Committee and also on Report.
  When the other place defeated our amendments under a guillotine and the matter was covered in that very short time, it was fair to ask: What are the Government trying to do? They originally proposed devolution to districts and boroughs and your Lordships, on the basis of independent evidence, passed an amendment which was put forward in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for whom I withdrew an amendment standing in my name at that time. It was not a party amendment at all. Your Lordships were convinced that in this very important and essential area waste disposal had to be carried out at county level, as it has been for many years now, before which, incidentally, the situation was a complete mess-up. It was for that reason that your Lordships passed that amendment, which then went to another place.
  What the Government were trying to do in the other place was to reverse the position, restore devolution to at least the majority of boroughs and districts and to arrive at their original destination by a rather different route. Indeed, what has now happened is that what we have in front of us today is rather worse than the Bill which we were discussing when we changed it in Committee, because instability is now being created by providing for temporary joint authorities which will be expected to pass their functions back to the boroughs and districts—thus building great instability and fragmentation into the arrangements.
  It also means that the expertise and the skilled teams involved will be quite irrecoverable once this happens. It was on that point that your Lordships were so impressed and convinced when this question was discussed in Committee. Also the amendments which were introduced by the Minister for Local Government in another place have built into them the probability—I would not even say the possibility, because if your Lordshps read the amendment in lieu you will see it is a very strong probability—that any joint authority which is established would be asked to submit proposals for its own demise. The Minister indicated that any orders made would specify that it should be done within 12 months.
  I would ask your Lordships: so what do we have? We have a situation where the boroughs and districts must come up with some voluntary groupings or individual plans by November—and the time has been slipping away, because when we were discussing it the plans were due to come out in September but now it is November. It is said that there may be a joint
  536
  authority set up, not necessarily county-wide though that may be the case in some instances, or there could be small groups within counties. In fact, there will be no rationale about it at all; it will be completely all over the place.
  If that were not enough, the Minister can in that order make sure that within 12 months it has then to go back to the districts and boroughs again. One could not run any sort of business on those grounds. How can one run in that way what is one of the most important services and functions that any local authority has to carry out today?
  The Government's proposals ignore the basic structure of waste disposal in this country. I do not apologise for repeating in this context what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has so rightly stressed: the co-disposal of hazardous with household, domestic and commercial waste. It may be a peculiar method but that is the way we deal with waste disposal in this country, and it has been successful for many years now. But, as has been pointed out, the Minister for Local Government did not even mention this. I imagine that he is aware of it, but there was no mention of it and no discussion. That may have been due to the guillotine, but this is the central point around which the arrangements for waste disposal in this country have to be made.
  5 p.m.
  It has to be dealt with at county level. But the operational functions under the Government's amendments may be dealt with in isolation by some districts, groups of district, or in other cases groups of boroughs, with an almost total separation of powers. I think that it is up to Ministers to explain why the Government are proposing a wholly new course for waste disposal, and, even with the talk of lead boroughs for hazardous waste, the devolution for household waste with the far reaching national implications. I think the Government would do well to remember the words of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, at Committee stage when he said, at col. 759:
  "it is essential to have a firm deposit of non-hazardous commercial and domestic waste in order safely to co-dispose hazardous waste".—[Official Report, 9/5/85].
  The two go together and cannot be separated. This is a scientific view and certainly not a political view because this subject is something which in my view, and in the view of most people, is not a party political subject. It is up to the Government to explain how these changes accord with informed opinion.
  The report of the Hazardous Waste Inspectorate has recently been published, in June 1985. I wonder whether, had it appeared a little earlier, it might have made very much difference to views all around. In paragraph 1.9 it says:
  "The Government has recorded that it fully endorses the words expressed—
  the view of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, who is the chairman of the House of Lords Committee on Hazardous Waste—
  "that the heart of successful waste management is public confidence and acceptance".
  How can public confidence be increased by the break up of the very centres of excellence recognised as

  537
  important by the inspectorate, and indeed by your Lordships' House when your Lordships voted at Committee stage? In their report the inspectorate says:
  "The Hazardous Waste Inspectorate would view with alarm any prospect of these experienced hazardous waste management teams being disbanded upon the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. The Hazardous Waste Inspectorate therefore strongly supports the Department of Environment guidance note issued on 28th March which concluded that hazardous waste management services should be the responsibility of a common unit in each metropolitan area".
  That particular paragraph goes on further, but I shall not weary your Lordships with that. But it is absolutely clear and very strongly worded.
  It is quite extraordinary that we have here something which is almost unique. It is a report from Her Majesty's own Inspectorate on hazardous waste, together with the view of all the independent and professional bodies, and with the expressed opinions of at least two Select Committees of your Lordships' House. Yet the Government for a completely dogmatic reason—it is a rather Pavlovian reaction that, at the mention of a joint authority, we jump with panic and fear—are going along this very unfortunate path.
  The private sector is also united in its condemnation of the Government's so-called compromise. Noble Lords will have received, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has done, and as I myself have done today, letters from the waste contractors' body and the president of the professional institue. They conclude by saying that the situation in which they find themselves does not meet the reservations expressed in the House of Lords; and neither does it meet with the approval of the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, and the Institute of Waste Management.
  If we insist on this amendment it will not be a question of doing any harm or offending or challenging the Bill. The Bill will go through. The GLC and the metropolitan counties will be abolished. What we are trying to do is to limit the damage as much as possible. To break up the whole of a working waste disposal system for the sake of not setting up another joint authority does not make sense. Indeed, the Long Title to the Bill, where the Government explain what the Bill is about, in a reference to devolving duties to the boroughs and districts, also says,
  "and, in some cases, to other bodies".
  So this is not contrary to the Bill. I must point out to those noble Lords who made these points in the previous debate that this is not, in fact, at all contrary to the Bill. Joint boards or joint authorities do not offend what is already to take place under the Bill. There are fire, police, and public transport joint authorities. In this House there was a joint planning committee for London. I agree that that is an advisory committee, but again it is a joint committee.
  To reverse the provision in this way seems to me and to my colleagues on these Benches to be something that is destructive. It can affect hygiene and health. It can even be extremely dangerous and result in injuries and death, as we have seen in the past when there has been the odd accident. If this is to be broken up and fragmented in this way, then the opportunity for more accidents and for greater breakdown will be tremendous. With the amount of waste increasing all
  538
  the time, with the increase in the amount of dangerous and hazardous waste as well as in ordinary domestic and commercial waste, and with the increase in technology, is this the time to start handing disposal back to boroughs and districts, which have neither the manpower or the personnel nor the finance to deal with it? This amendment was a mild, non-political amendment which was passed by this House. All we are asking is that this House insists on this. The Government will have the Bill, but at least let us have some concern for the people of this country.
  The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, from this side of the House I am clearly less suspicious of the assurances that are given by Members of the Government from the Floor of either this or another place than perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Nonetheless, I am obliged to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the counter-proposals to your Lordships' amendment introduce a series of confusions, of apparently new issues, which I feel need some very clear clarification from the Floor of the House if the amendments are to be accepted.
  May I start by taking advantage of the presence of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, and putting to him that these are new proposals? These are not, strictly speaking, a compromise. A compromise might have been merely a revision of the date to allow the opportunity to test for voluntary arrangements to come into existence. But we have apparently new proposals. I wonder—and I say this with all deference to his far greater wisdom and with the humility appropriate to somebody from the Back-Bench—whether it is not perhaps incumbent on us at least to get involved in a dialogue which permits the clarification of these issues if necessary.
  In a sense, I am thrown right back to the circumstances at the beginning of the Select Committee's inquiry into science and technology in local government. The evidence that was given to us in March by the Department of the Environment as the lead department on the role of central government in relation to scientific and technological services has already been published and is available to your Lordships under the reference 99-v. The initial point was made by the Department of the Environment that central government, because it has no direct role in ensuring the adequacy of scientific and technical services provided by or available to, individual local authorities, does not have any clear knowledge of these facilities. It was said that no single department can comment authoritatively on the general question of whether local authorities, collectively or individually, possess or have access to appropriate scientific and technological expertise. This gave us a very clear stimulus to progress with our inquiry, because it was quite clear that we were breaking new ground, doing something and fulfilling a useful function which is not available to central government.
  Those words were said to us in March, but the same words were repeated to us in July in evidence which has not yet been published, but which is available and is technically a public document through your Lordships' Library, saying that the Department of the Environment has no overall view on how many or what sort of specialist staff should support particular

  539
  services, or on how those staff should be deployed. But when we get into the question of waste disposal we are instantly putting on my noble friend the Minister a tremendous responsibility in having to define exactly these issues at the local government level.
  The purpose of the amendment which was passed by this House and moved by myself, following an amendment which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has mentioned, she withdrew, was simply to do one thing. It picked up a power which was already given to the Secretary of State in the existing Bill and it advanced the date at which that power was exerted. It took away from him the freedom of choice. The obligation then lay in the Bill. It did not, in any sense, strike at the overall intentions of the Bill. It did not introduce a new authority that had not been already provided for. This is why I felt free to support it from the background of my scientific and professional career, rather than from a political point of view, and to urge your Lordships to vote for that amendment.
  As I said the other day, things have happened very rapidly in the months during which we have been debating this Bill. I have greatly appreciated the way in which my noble friends on the Front Bench have adapted themselves to some of the suggestions which have come forward from my quarter and which have received general support in the House. This in itself produces new circumstances. I believe that there has been a mutual learning process. Certainly, I have learned an enormous amount and I believe that other quarters have learned, too.
  There has been, in addition to the report published by the inspectors of hazardous waste (to which the noble Baroness has already referred) an extremely important report published since the beginning of our debates in April 1985. That is the report of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell, Environmental and Medical Services Division, entitled Pollution By Wastes. This deals in great detail with the whole issue of the disposal of hazardous, commercial and industrial wastes and this report, by yet another independent but highly authoritative body, also insists very strongly on the fundamental importance of the combined strategy required for the disposal of domestic, commercial, industrial and hazardous wastes.
  Moreover, this report emphasises the fact that the margin between hazardous and industrial wastes is very slim. It is very frequent that the producer of the waste does not himself fully recognise the hazard. The hazard has to be identified by the waste disposal authority, which requires the laboratory facilities, the technical services and professional support in order to do this job properly. These service already exist in the county authorities and the purpose of our amendment was to ensure their perpetuation as they stand. I believe that it is efficient and economic to perpetuate these present arrangements, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to explain fully how the alternative proposals that are put forward by the Government will be satisfactory.
  If I may make one point, I do not think that the kind of arrangements which can seem satisfactory are the guidance notes that were issued in late March. These are inadequate on scientific and technological
  540
  grounds. They take little account of anything more than geographical proximity in suggesting the allocation of arrangements that might jointly be entered into. It is very important that assurances should be given that, if it so happens—and I hope very sincerely that it will happen—that the successor authorities, the present metropolitan districts and the boroughs in London, come together and propose to the Secretary of State that their whole existing waste disposal system with its supporting services should be perpetuated, the proposals of the Government will permit this to happen and, moreover, that the Secretary of State will positively encourage the continuation of what at present appears to be a highly efficient, professional, effective and safe service in this country.
  5.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, as a professional chemist I am naturally interested in the problems of waste disposal, hazardous waste disposal and sewage disposal, of which only the first two are the concern of this Bill. If I do not come to the same conclusions as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, it is not because we differ on technological matters. It is because this Bill is about the administration of technological matters, not the technological matters themselves. When it comes to administration, I always go for a straight line chain of command terminating with somebody responsible for a particular discharge of his duties.
  If you have a number of organisations doing similar jobs, and you impose on them a higher level to correlate what they are doing, you run straight into the line and staff problem and all that that involves, which I have always regarded as the pons asinorum of multi-establishment administration. Do not, my Lords, make a stick to flog your backs with by imposing that upper tier, unless you have to do so; and this Bill is concerned with abolishing upper tiers. This has nothing to do with the possibility of setting up a central service to act, as it were, as a public consultant in these matters.
  The House will remember that, at an earlier stage of this Bill, I pressed the Government to reassure those scientists and other similar workers employed by the GLC that they had a home to go to at the time when this Bill vested and the Government went a long way towards reassuring me on that point. In the sphere of waste disposal they again seem to have come quite a long way from their original provisions and have made proposals for tightening up what was only sketched in the original Bill. Fixing the deadline at 15th November is important, because it renders forward procedures unambiguous in point of time. The fact that the Secretary of State now has the explicit and positive duty to set up arrangements for the disposal of hazardous wastes is an improvement. To sum up the statement made in the other place, if the Secretary of State has not received mutually binding and signed agreements early in November, he will have to step in and impose what he thinks proper.
  Only last Saturday, at a congregation at Brunel University where I was admitting students to their degrees, I was told that five local councils have come together, one of them being a centre of excellence, quite spontaneously. Nobody told them to do it. They thought it a sensible way to manage their affairs on a

  541
  co-partnership basis. I see no obvious reluctance on the part of people to join in joint enterprises of this kind. If they can be persuaded into doing things voluntarily, it is very much better than imposing authority over them.
  I have one or two questions which I should like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to answer when he replies. The first relates to hazardous wastes. I think this point has been made before but I should like to come back to it. A note was issued by the Department of the Environment on 28th March of this year recommending that satisfactory arrangements for hazardous waste disposal should be county-wide. I assume that the noble Lord has taken that under his belt, as it were, and will be able to give me a satisfactory reply. I am not quite clear how often the provision for the self-winding-up and transfer of function of an authority is intended to apply. Is it intended to apply only in those cases where they have come forward with a sensible proposal for some better partnership arrangement to be entered into among them?
  We cannot treat these matters as exclusively the concern of local government because the public sector is involved. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned this. The private sector is heavily and very successfully involved in working as a contractor for waste disposal. The equity in established bargains ought not to be interfered with in any arbitrary way. My Lords, 15th November is only 17 weeks away, of which I should think about half will be taken up by the holiday period, and time marches on. We ought not to be introducing a delay in the process by playing ping-pong unduly with the other place. Of course, there is nothing out of order in today's proceedings, but, whichever way the matter goes today, I hope it will to some extent achieve finality and that we shall be able to get ahead.
  I agree with the Commons amendments and recommend them to your Lordships. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
  Lord Gregson: My Lords, as the Gregson of the Gregson Report, I think it is very sad indeed that your Lordships' House finds itself once again discussing this issue. I cannot really believe that the Government should be so ill-advised as to pursue such an unsatisfactory course of action. After the reports of two Select Committees of this House, the report on waste disposal of Harwell, the premier research centre in Europe, and, in the past few weeks, the report of the Government's own Hazardous Waste Inspectorate, I should have thought that the Government would see the error of their ways. I find it unbelievable that they have been advised to follow their present course. I can only conclude that somewhere along the line dogma has somehow intruded but this cannot be a political issue because the issues involved are surely far too serious and important.
  I do not intend to repeat the content of my speech on the occasion of the amendment but I think it is important to state the facts of the issue. More than 5 million tonnes of hazardous waste are produced in this country every year. There are 1·6 million tonnes of special waste, defined previously under the Poisonous Waste Act, produced in this country. All this waste
  542
  must be disposed of safely if industry in this country is to continue to operate. I often wonder whether noble Lords opposite have any idea of what 5 million tonnes of hazardous waste looks like, and what an enormous problem it is to dispose of it safely.
  In addition to the total content, some 85 per cent. of all the hazardous waste produced in this country is disposed of by landfill. I am afraid that I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the figures are even worse than the ones he quoted. As I say, 85 per cent. of the 5 million tonnes of hazardous waste is disposed of by landfill. More than 50 per cent. of that waste arises in the areas of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. They have by far the greatest problem and the greatest responsibility to deal with this problem. They have therefore created in the past 12 years a most effective technical force to deal with the problem. They have been praised throughout the world for their effectiveness and efficiency in carrying out that very onerous duty.
  It is obvious that in order to carry out that duty the waste disposal authorities created in 1972 should in fact be multi-discipline authorities. Underpinning the 85 per cent. of the 5 million tonnes of hazardous waste that has to be disposed of by landfill in this country is the practice of co-disposal, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords this afternoon, with domestic waste—the so-called "dilute and disperse"—a procedure special to the United Kingdom but essential in this highly populated island. This practice is a very delicate and highly critical one depending for safety on absolute standards of management and control. That is why it is rarely practised outside the United Kingdom. It requires detailed knowledge of the domestic waste deposited as well as complete knowledge of the hazardous waste that is later poured upon it. It would be foolish in the extreme to separate the two, but that is what the Government are now proposing. This is what I cannot understand.
  Because of co-disposal, waste disposal authorities are integrated organisations covering both domestic waste and hazardous waste within the same organisation, a combined technical force which covers the whole aspect of the waste disposal for a given area. To separate them after 12 years of development when they have moulded themselves into a highly competent unit would be irresponsible in the extreme. Perhaps I may quote the continuation of the passage of the report of the Hazardous Waste Inspectorate, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, stopped short:
  "The Hazardous Waste Inspectorate attaches great importance to the retention of these experienced hazardous waste management teams and considers that any other action would result in chaos in hazardous waste management. The inexperience of successor authorities shorn of any strategic role in the region would be ruthlessly exploited by those designated by Lord Gregson as the cowboy element. The Hazardous Waste Inspectorate has no doubt that these major urban areas do constitute cowboy country and notes that several members of the metropolitan authority inspection teams have been physically assaulted in pursuit of their duties. In Merseyside, for example, it sometimes proves necessary to deploy inspectors in twos and even in threes, equipped with personal radios, when investigating the activities of some local asbestos strippers and their transfer stations".
  Waste disposal authorities are integrated, highly specialised and highly developed organisations. In my opinion it would be foolish in the extreme to break them up and try, first, to develop a disposal authority

  543
  for domestic waste in small areas and then, secondly, an authority for hazardous waste. That has never been attempted and it was never intended when the original organisations were set up. I ask your Lordships to support the original amendment of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I rise to speak in this particular debate because I served on the committees of both the noble Lord, Lord Gregson and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Of all the issues which have come before your Lordships on this Bill, I regard this one as being in some ways the most serious.
  I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who said that this was an area of potential danger. He is of course absolutely right. It is an area of real danger now. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, sought to dismiss the case made in the amendment and said that he was satisfied with the proposals on administrative grounds. I have a high respect for the noble Earl, but he must have forgotten some of the administrative principles which he himself sought to enforce in the past.
  I ask your Lordships to take this issue very seriously indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, made some very powerful arguments. Anybody who is interested in conservation and in the quality of life must reject as second best a proposal from the Government in which they themselves are not confident. The Government themselves, after a lot of hesitation, have come up with a new date by which decisions must be made. Indeed, one might almost say that the Government are in a recidivist state of mind in this connection. I would not call the noble Lord himself a recidivist, but those of us who have followed this argument cannot be other than appalled about this particular issue.
  Whereas I supported the proposals on transport and other matters, I see this matter as being in a special category. In the absence of the Leader of the House, I may say to your Lordships that the noble Viscount was wise not to follow the obvious temptation which confronted him—namely, to say to your Lordships that it would be undesirable to disagree with the Commons in their amendment. The noble Viscount was very tempted to do so, but having rejected that course of action, he said that this was a matter of compromise, that we have accepted some amendments and have rejected others. That is not a sound parliamentary principle.
  I would urge any of your Lordships who are interested in this matter to read the committees' reports—especially that of the Gregson Committee—and to take this issue very seriously. Indeed, I would ask noble Lords to ensure that the Commons amendment is disagreed to. Even if none of the other amendments is disagreed to, this amendment is certainly one to which I should like to see your Lordships disagree.
  Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, at the Committee stage I voted against the amendment to Clause 9, although I felt there was some merit in the amendment that was put forward. But that amendment went completely against the principles of this Bill which were accepted on Second Reading. Since then the
  544
  Government have moved a long way. The balance of argument is now very strongly against accepting the amendment on its own merits and in favour of accepting the amendments to Clause 9 put forward in another place. However, I believe that some clarification is needed in respect of some of the points we are discussing, and I shall come to those in a moment.
  The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Gregson, and my noble kinsman Lord Cranbrook, have laid great emphasis on the technical problems of the disposal of hazardous waste. They seem to be saying that some noble Lords do not take this matter seriously. I take it very seriously indeed. There is no one keener on the protection of the environment than I, nor more aware of the problems and dangers of nuclear waste. However, I suggest that this is not a technical problem. It is an organisational problem, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has made clear to us. The technical factors are not overriding because they are common to whatever organisation is set up. We are searching for the best organisation, the least bureaucratic and the most efficient. Whatever organisation is set up, surely the technical services, the experience and the knowledge of all the people who have been involved in this problem of nuclear waste will still be available in any case.
  There have been three significant changes since we discussed this matter in Committee. They are significant, and they meet to a large extent the objectives of those who propose the amendment to Clause 9, which was carried by four votes at the Committee stage. First, there is the introduction of the deadline of 15th November, by which date the Secretary of State has to be assured that satisfactory arrangements have been made. That is certainly a step forward.
  Secondly, the Secretary of State now has a duty to make an order setting up joint arrangements if he is not satisfied that satisfactory arrangements have been made. It is no longer simply permissive. But perhaps most important of all, as I have already suggested, is the duty on the Secretary of State to have special regard to the needs concerning the disposal of hazardous waste. I do not underestimate the problems, but on this matter it is clear that if people are not satisfied with a decision that the Secretary of State takes, he can be challenged, if there is any question of dissatisfaction or doubt.
  I understand that a number of boroughs and districts have already made detailed plans to run the waste disposal service jointly. It is right in my view that they should be permitted to do so. Even so, there will be no question, as I understand it, of authorities taking on responsibility for this service if they have not made arrangements which are deemed satisfactory by the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will confirm that.
  Returning to the problems of the disposal of hazardous waste, the Secretary of State now has to pay particular regard to this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has already indicated, the DoE has accepted that there is a need for co-ordinated action on hazardous waste. I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply whether he can assure the House that that means the Secretary of State will not be satisfied with the arrange-

  545
  ments made unless they are adequate regionally; that is, that there are adequate county-wide arrangements for the disposal of hazardous waste. In that case, as I understand it, the Secretary of State will be compelled, if he is not satisfied, to make an order which can deal, if necessary specifically, with any particular problems of hazardous waste. That will to my mind provide a complete safeguard on the points which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I repeat that they are not technical points but purely organisational points.
  Some clarification is needed also on the implications of the provisions, to which reference has already been made, enabling the Secretary of State to require any authority established by an order to prepare a scheme for winding itself up. Am I right in assuming—and I hope that the Minister can answer this question—that that provision is included because of the relatively short time available to the boroughs and districts to reach voluntary agreements? I hope that the Minister can confirm that that provision will be used only where there is a prospect of voluntary arrangements being reached which are an improvement on the statutory arrangements which have been imposed by the order.
  As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, there is heavy private sector involvement in the waste disposal business. If the amendments to Clause 9 proposed in another place are accepted, can the Minister clarify the position in respect of private sector companies with major contracts under the present regime? That is a very important point, and it is one that has been made by one or two other noble Lords.
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to say that the private sector concern is not only with their current contracts. They are concerned also about the arrangements under which they can make future contracts. They are very concerned about the multiplicity of organisations with which they might have to deal.
  Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, all private sector companies like to have continuity of arrangements. They may find a little difficulty, but that is not a matter of overriding importance when considering this Bill.
  Finally, in my view the boroughs and districts are perfectly capable of running this service, acting jointly wherever appropriate. Surely they are best placed to devise arrangements for acting jointly. It will be far more efficient for them to work out their own proposals rather than have Government and Parliament imposing some bureaucratic arrangements on them. No doubt they will seize that opportunity if it is presented to them in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with the amendments proposed in another place and not insist on our own amendment.
  Baroness White: My Lords, I intervene briefly because I am much disturbed by the speeches we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord opposite. They are, indeed, distinguished in their own fields, but they are not very knowledge-able about the true nature of the handling of hazardous waste in the totality of the waste disposal system in this country. One cannot disintegrate, as the
  546
  Government are attempting to do and as the Minister attempted to do in the other place recently, the handingly of hazardous waste from the totality of the waste cycle. It simply does not meet the situation as it exists. It is quite clear that the Minister in the other place did not fully understand the implications of what he was saying,
  Since last Monday, when the other place decided the way that it did, I have been strengthening my own resolve to support, in particular, the attitude of the chairman of one of the two Select Committees—the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook—by the conversations which I have had in the past few days with leading professionals in both the private and public sectors. I urge upon your Lordships to understand that they are considerably perturbed by the proposals which have been put forward by the Government. They know that the proposals now before us which we are being asked to accept, having abandoned our own convictions as expressed during our earlier debate, will not work properly except in a very few instances and in certain special circumstances.
  A senior director of one of the largest private contractors in the waste disposal business said to me this morning:
  "The Government can approve certain groupings of boroughs but they cannot assure their effective working. They are asking us to accept a pattern which sensible and experienced men with long professional experience know to be wrong. It is an insult to our professionalism".
  That was said to me by a senior director of one of the largest waste disposal companies in this country. He also said that there are still some people old enough to recall the old unintegrated system when the boroughs did, in fact, run the waste disposal arrangements, to which they have no wish to return.
  In the intervening years the need for integration has enormously increased, not least because of the complexities of hazardous waste, but one cannot deal with the disposal of hazardous waste except on a day-to-day basis. It is absurd for the Government to suggest that the treatment of hazardous waste is non-operational. It is operational all the way through. It is true that one needs the scientific direction and the research capability, and so on, but the disposition of hazardous waste in this country, as other noble Lords have fully indicated, is inseparable from the organisation of general waste disposal.
  My chief deep concern is that the Ministers and the Government even now do not appear fully to appreciate this. It was made perfectly clear in a major report at the Department of the Environment issued some years ago. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to more recent reports which re-emphasised this. One does not know how to deal with a situation which has been handled on a political basis which does not connect with reality. This is nothing to do with public or private sectors. For example, ICI has to dispose of considerable amounts of chemical waste. They do a certain amount of that in-house. But what do they do? They obtain domestic waste from the local authorities. All that must be properly organised on a basis which, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, said, is very precariously balanced in its own scientific relationships.

  547
  5.45 p.m.
  The hazardous waste inspectorate has emphasised that suitable arrangements must be made to ensure that enforcement teams are viable. As they say in their recent report, to diffuse them between several authorities, whether grouped authorities or not, would only offer encouragement to those seeking to avoid waste management controls. Disintegration into small groups of boroughs will not overcome the needs and the requirements of the great conurbations which, as we have already been told, are the sources of by far the greatest proportion of the hazardous wastes in this country.
  One can go on pointing to the various gaping holes in the Government's case. If one is talking of organisation, it is not only for hazardous waste, although that is by far the greatest factor in the equation. In the great conurbations one needs maximum flexibility, which only unified administration can provide. For example, fog on the lower reaches of the Thames can completely disrupt London's waste transfer system. With a unified authority one can switch instantly, without inter-group diplomacy or negotiation, to road or rail to minimise the disruption. Groups of councils co-operating in threes or fours simply cannot act with the swiftness required in our great cities.
  We have been asked to overturn the considered opinion of your Lordships' House based, I should have thought, as soundly as any amendment could be based, on the work of Select Committees of this House. As my noble friend Lady Birk said, if we go back to where we were when we last debated the matter, and stand by our convictions, it will cause the Government a slight temporary embarrassment, but neither the Government nor the Bill will be in any danger. There is no reason for this House limply to acquiesce in something which anyone who has studied the matter knows to be wrong.
  Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, it is essential that this important public service should not become a political football and that its uncertainty should not be clouded, as it is at this moment. We have heard from noble Lords during the course of the debate of the different deadlines when the districts will take over. The later deadline now proposed prolongs the uncertainty with no guarantee that adequate arrangements will be forthcoming, particularly since the districts have not yet met any of the previous deadlines.
  When noble Lords speak about districts and boroughs they have in mind in particular the London area. When I speak about districts I am referring to the districts in the metropolitan counties, and therefore, the co-ordination which is taking place there. As the Minister told us during the course of the debate, while seven groups of authorities are getting together in the London area, no comprehensive proposals have yet been put forward by the metropolitan county district areas. We were told that by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, during the debate. Therefore, the Secretary of State will still have the power to set up partial arrangements covering only some of the waste disposal functions or a part of a county area, with the result that more fragmentation may possibly occur in the
  548
  metropolitan county district areas. The Minister for Local Government has also made it abundantly clear that any authority established under the reserve power would probably be required to submit proposals for devolving the function back to the districts within 12 months. So there would be two reorganisations, two sets of transitional costs, and even more protracted uncertainty would follow.
  Other noble Lords have said that the waste disposal service can be carried out only on a county-wide basis, and it is important for us to use the best of the facilities and of course to minimise the risks to the environment and to public health. Fragmentation of the service will lead inevitably to the adoption of the "Nimby" principle—the "Not-in-my-back-yard" principle. The results will be chaotic: an under-use of facilities, both public and private, with lower standards, and an unwillingness for one authority to accept another's waste. This is a very serious problem in the large conurbations where there are completely built-up areas. The Government themselves have stressed the need to have particular regard for satisfactory arrangements in respect of hazardous waste.
  I listened very closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, had to say and one gives credit to Lord Gregson for his great knowledge of hazardous wastes. I made a particular note concerning the West Midlands, which is the part of the country from where I come. The figures that are contained in the report of the Hazardous Waste Inspectorate show that over 20 per cent. of the hazardous waste produced in England is disposed of in the West Midlands; and somebody mentioned a large chemical company which sends its hazardous waste to the West Midlands, many hundreds of miles away from where the hazard in the chemicals originates.
  But hazardous waste cannot be considered in isolation because of the co-disposal approach which is adopted in the counties. We shall have fragmentation of the waste disposal function which, as noble Lords have said, will obviously undermine the viability of the private sector waste disposal operations. I think it must be recognised that many of the large in-fill sites around the country are obviously in-fill sites that belong to private individuals and therefore the in-fill hole, if one calls it that, is in the hands of the private owner.
  I think it is important for noble Lords, who have been listening very attentively to this debate, to listen to the wise words that have been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, by my noble friend Lady Birk and by experts in the field, who include the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Gregson. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, it is important for the House to listen to the arguments and then to make up its mind. There has been much interest from noble Lords who have been listening to the argument; I hope that when the vote takes place they will be able to convince their noble friends who have not been listening to the arguments to vote on this side of the House.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, at least I join the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, in hoping that your Lordships will listen to the argument, and I hope that your Lordships will listen with particular care to that

  549
  part of the argument which has not yet been deployed but which soon will be, because I think that there are one or two small but important misconceptions on the Floor of the House at the moment.
  The first proposals on waste disposal and regulation which we saw were those sent to this House by the other place. They provided for the responsibilities of the GLC and the MCCs for waste regulation and disposal to be devolved to the borough and district councils. They also provided a reserve power for my right honourable friend, in the absence of adequate voluntary joint arrangements for the discharge of those functions, to impose a statutory joint arrangement by order.
  The next stage was when, against the Government's advice, your Lordships amended these proposals so that waste regulation and disposal functions were to be transferred to a single joint authority in each area. Under the amendment this was always to be done without any opportunity for the boroughs and districts to put forward proposals to assume those functions themselves on abolition, even if they wanted to. Your Lordships did this because, as I understand it, your Lordships were concerned in particular that there should be certainty over the future arrangements for waste disposal and especially for the disposal of hazardous waste. These are concerns which Her Majesty's Government entirely share and that is why in the first place we proposed the reserve power to which I have just referred. We fully appreciate the strong concern expressed both here and in another place that nothing shall go wrong with these arrangements and that the disposal of waste shall continue with uninterrupted efficiency before, during and after abolition day. As I say, it is a concern which we entirely share.
  We are also strongly of the opinion that voluntary arrangements freely entered into by the elected representatives of the people will offer thoroughly satisfactory solutions in many cases. We know that groups of authorities are already preparing to make such arrangements and we have to admit that the voluntary approach has a number of advantages. The first and obvious one, of course, is the enthusiastic commitment of the elected authorities concerned, because it is their own invention after all. Secondly, those authorities are much more closely in touch with their own situations and problems than anyone in Whitehall can hope to be.
  Thirdly they can arrive at mutually satisfactory arrangements in direct negotiation with their neighbours much more quickly than through the brokerage or intervention of a Government department. Finally, they can come together in groupings which are determined by knowledge and convenience and not, as is now proposed from the other side of the House, by rule of thumb and very inflexibly.
  All your Lordships, not only those on the other side of the House or indeed on the Cross Benches, are anxious to defend democracy in this Bill. To those who are most anxious I must make this observation: what we propose is that the elected representatives of the people affected shall be given every possible
  550
  opportunity to choose the arrangements they want to have; what the Motion proposes is that they shall have none. Further, as may well happen, if some councils feel, like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and those who have spoken in support of him, that the best solution is a statutory joint board and they do want it to be set up by order, all they have to do is to ask for it and it will be given to them. The power is in the Bill.
  The London boroughs of Harrow, Hillingdon, Brent, Richmond and Ealing have, in fact, asked for statutory arrangements for the western group of boroughs, and accordingly we shall be happy to make an order for that purpose. I am sure that my noble friends at least will agree that where boroughs or districts want to come together and run their own show, and where the Government are satisfied that these arrangements are satisfactory and will work, it would be a very great pity indeed to stamp out that initiative, push the volunteers away from the drawing board and say, "No, you have to do it like this because we say you should do".
  6 p.m.
  We therefore have three concerns—to permit effective and satisfactory voluntary arrangements where those are made; to provide satisfactory compulsory arrangements where they are not; and of course where voluntary arrangements are made which are satisfactory to start with, we must clearly, if they become unsatisfactory, have the means immediately to hand to substitute satisfactory compulsory arrangements. The proposal that we originally made to achieve those three purposes was to entrust everything to the good will of the councils and the good sense of the Secretary of State. Your Lordships wish to make doubly sure. In spite of my undertaking that we should use the reserve power in the absence of satisfactory proposals by the end of September—and I shall return to that date in a moment—your Lordships decided that joint arrangements imposed by statute would always be best and made Amendment No. 22 on the Marshalled List. That was the second stage in the evolution of those proposals.
  The third was completed in another place, where the Government again sought to devise a way of permitting the councils to work out arrangements that would fit their own varying and particular circumstances in a way that neither a standard device nor central direction could hope to achieve. That looks to me like a search for the compromise which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook says we should be looking for. Our aim was to do so in a way that would leave no remaining doubt that by 1st April 1986, come what may, a safe and effective system will be in place, that hazardous waste in particular will be securely catered for and that effective systems which later fail can be swiftly replaced under statutory power. What we then came up with was a system which I believe meets all the criteria, and it was accepted by another place, which now proposes it to your Lordships instead of what your Lordships sent to it. Unlike those arrangements, it combines the flexibility of locally agreed arrangements, tailor-made to fit local requirements, with the certainty that a properly organised scheme will emerge for every borough and every district before abolition day. It does not weaken what was in the Bill; it strengthens it.

  551
  We have achieved that in three ways. We have moved from giving the Secretary of State merely a power to intervene, and turned that power into a duty. In any case where satisfactory arrangements are not made voluntarily he will now have a duty to make them himself by order. Secondly, and as a consequence of that, we have moved from the security merely of an undertaking that the Secretary of State would act to the certainty of a duty on the face of the Bill. Thirdly, by inserting a deadline we have made the very precise requirement that satisfactory arrangements should be made and if satisfactory arrangements are not made by that date the Secretary of State must act. I shall spell out in a moment what we mean by satisfactory arrangements, but let me first pick up a point of concern which has been repeated in one way or another two or three times this afternoon.
  When we were debating this amendment when it was last in this House I said that the Secretary of State would invoke his reserve power to make an order if he was not satisfied with what had been done by the end of September. In the proposals now before us from another place the date for making an order—and it is a date for making an order, I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, and not the date of takeover, which has not changed and was and always will be 1st April next year—we put in the Bill as 15th November. That is one and a half months later than the date to which I referred.
  That is not a slippage of six weeks and it is not a change in our intentions or a weakening in our resolve. It merely represents the fact that we have moved from the Secretary of State having to be informally satisfied that what was proposed would be all right to the statutory duty to know that it would be all right; and that means that he must have a written, signed, mutually binding and legally binding agreement among the co-operating authorities which is enforceable at law on his desk in time to satisfy himself that it is workable by 15th November. If it is not, he has to start preparing his order—the statutory order that your Lordships will want to see if a satisfactory voluntary arrangement is not available. He cannot do that overnight and so he will be inquiring ahead of the date to see what is happening.
  Let me explain. As I foreshadowed in my original undertaking, we shall invite boroughs and districts to submit detailed proposals by 30th September at the latest. We shall let them have our reaction within about 10 days and invite them to draw up the draft terms of a binding agreement. If those terms look satisfactory we shall ask for a signed agreement by early November so that the Secretary of State can take his decision on 15th November. We originally set out the criteria against which the Secretary of State would judge whether those proposals were satisfactory and the considerations which he would weigh in a guidance note issued to boroughs and districts on 28th March.
  I entirely accept, as my noble friend Lord Cranbrook suggested, that that guidance has been overtaken by events. If, as I hope, your Lordships accept the Commons amendments in lieu, we shall therefore bring that guidance up to date to reflect progress made, concerns expressed and knowledge deployed in your Lordships' House by issuing further
  552
  advice to the boroughs and districts very shortly. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady White, that that will include guidance on the provision of contingency plans for any interruption in the accessibility of points for the disposal of waste whether by reason of a fog down the river or for any other reason.
  The guidance will also reflect the enhanced role for the residuary bodies in reviewing and possibly employing groups of specialist staff. In working out those arrangements many authorities will have reached a final view on their proposals for employing specialist staff, but some may not have done so and the residuary bodies will be there to take on such staff until final arrangements are settled.
  I shall be as brief as I can, but your Lordships will want me to refer to hazardous waste and will want to know what sort of voluntary arrangements my right honourable friend would be prepared to consider and might find satisfactory. I have already made it clear that we envisage special arrangements for hazardous waste in all the abolition areas, and those arrangements will generally need to be county-wide. In any case, if they are not effective for the whole county, the Secretary of State will of course be obliged to set up a joint authority.
  The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, in particular, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, I think, expressed concern at the creation of a county-wide body to deal with hazardous waste alongside local groupings to deal with ordinary or other waste. That does not imply a basic separation, as some of your Lordships seem to fear. We envisage that both operational and regulatory functions will rest with borough and district councils. Under the special arrangements for hazardous waste we should expect to see central units of specialist staff with specialist resources. Their job will be to give expert advice on hazardous waste problems; to advise a joint committee or lead authority which will administer the control of pollution (special waste) regulations; to monitor compliance with site licence conditions; to maintain common databases and records of the location and movement of hazardous waste; to provide an emergency service to deal with incidents; to give advice on general site licensing matters to the borough or district councils; to underpin their common consideration of general regulatory problems; and to co-ordinate planning and research and development work.
  Lord Gregson: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can explain how that will help co-disposal, which means operational activity both in the disposal of hazardous and domestic waste together? What he has described is an advisory body, but that does not seem to meet the case at all.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that it does. I do not want to detain your Lordships but I think it is an important point. The functions will remain with the groups—with the individual authorities—but centrally they will have the expert team and resources to advise them. If the noble Lord reads Hansard he will see that the team will actually be inspecting sites on which the disposal by the co-operating authorities has taken place on its advice. If there is a departure from the regulatory standards which are set up under its

  553
  guidance, it will be for it immediately to report; and if a hazardous incident occurs it will provide the emergency service.
  We are not in Committee. Your Lordships can see by the pantomime that I have not satisfied the noble Lord, and you will not be surprised at that. But I think that your Lordships will agree that the machinery is there. What it needs to work it is good will, and good will will be there when we come to the end of the day. Your Lordships have spent much time considering, debating and improving the arrangements for keeping specialist teams of exactly this sort together and in business. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, I am convinced that they will work.
  In spite of the fact that a number of points remain which have been raised on the Floor of the House, I think that I can best reply to them in correspondence. However, your Lordships will want to know that we share the concern about the position of the major contractors which dispose of most of the waste in London and the metropolitan county council areas, and that they should not suffer as a result of abolition. We recognise the importance of the role played by these contractors and the heavy investment involved. We have made clear to successor authorities that any large-scale abandonment of existing contracts would he unacceptable and I am glad to be able to reinforce that. So what—
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord perhaps indicate why it is that, in spite of those reassurances, the private sector contractors are virtually unanimous in still expressing major apprehensions about the way in which these matters will be handled?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not in the least surprised that apprehension is expressed, not merely by major contractors but also by people involved in the waste industry generally, because of the uncertainty that has been cast upon all operations by news first of all of your Lordships' amendment and then news that your Lordships were about to insist on it—
  Lord Ezra: My Lords—
  Lord Elton: No, I really—
  Noble Lords: Order!
  Lord Elton: My Lords, from tonight that uncertainty will be resolved. From tonight we shall know where we are going.
  Baroness White: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but what about the assurances to the staff, who have been told that the Minister expects the authorities to provide him with the means for the dissolution of these new authorities, which therefore gives them no certainty?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness helpfully anticipates the very next point, which I might have left out to save time, and that would have been a disastrous omission. First of all, the staff will know the likely position in September when the Secretary of
  554
  State inquires of the local authority what its outline plans are and those will be known. However, as to the future, there is a misconception. My right honourable friend will, as the noble Baroness and others have said, have power to include in the order a provision requiring the authority established by the order, where he makes one, to submit a scheme for winding itself up. Your Lordships will see in the text of the Bill that here the word is "may" and not "shall". Throughout your Lordships have been assuming that every order will include such a requirement, but that is not the case. I think I should elaborate a little on what my right honourable friend said about it in another place because there is good reason for what we propose and I have discussed it with him. We include the provision because time is, as noble Lords have reminded us, short and because some councils which wish to have voluntary arrangements and have in fact started to prepare for them may simply not be able to get it ready by 15th November. If that happens, the Secretary of State is bound by the Bill as it is now drafted to bring in a statutory scheme of his own. We believe that where that happens, the wish to move to devolution by voluntary arrangements accounted as satisfactory by the Secretary of State ought not to be prematurely thwarted.
  I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that we are not therefore preparing to arrive, as she put it, at the same destination by another route, involving the wholesale institution of temporary authorities. I can assure my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that we shall not use this provision as a means of wholesale so-called voluntary devolution by compulsory means.
  In circumstances such as that this provision will provide both the safe, immediate cover of a statutory arrangement and the means for constituent councils under that cover to complete their plans for their preferred voluntary arrangements to replace it in due course. It is no more sinister than that.
  The Government proposals guard against all the dangers seen by your Lordships at Committee stage as justification for the amendments that you then put in the Bill. In the old form the Secretary of State was only permitted to act; now he is forced to act. In the old form the expectation of his action rested only on the word of a Minister; in the new it rests on the face of the Bill. In the old form he could be satisfied merely by outline proposals; he now needs a signed, legally binding document.
  We have heard that the new group authorities will be too small to be effective. By that standard half the counties in England are too small as well, yet your Lordships have not complained about them. We have heard also that what is proposed is dangerous as regards hazardous waste. Why was it thought dangerous?—because there would be a separation between those who deal with hazardous waste and those who deal with the rest. I have shown to some of your Lordships' satisfaction that these powers and functions remain together and that we have provided in addition for the retention of all the central specialist staff and resources necessary.
  This is a revising Chamber. It was as a revising Chamber that your Lordships asked another place to think again. It has thought again and so have Her

  555
  Majesty's Government. The result is a Bill materially strengthened in respect of the matters about which your Lordships were concerned. No authority can now be left without a satisfactory scheme. The element of doubt has been removed. The sanction of the law has been imposed. The continuation of specialist support teams has been provided for and the date for completion is to be fixed by statute. For I hope the very last time in the long progress of this Bill I invite your Lordships to listen to my advice and to vote "Not-Content".
  6.16 p.m.
  On Question, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 22 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 154; Not-Contents, 213.

  DIVISION NO. 2

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Foot, L.

  Ardwick, L.

  Gaitskell, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Gallacher, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Bacon, B.

  Glenamara, L.

  Banks, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Barrington, V.

  Grey, E.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Grimond, L.

  Bernstein, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Birk, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Birkett, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Henderson of Brompton, L.

  Boothby, L.

  Heycock, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Briginshaw, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Broadbridge, L.

  Hughes, L.

  Brockway, L.

  Hunt, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Ingleby, V.

  Buckmaster, V.

  Irving of Dartford, L.

  Burton of Coventry, B.

  Jacobson, L.

  Caradon, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Chitnis, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Collison, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Constantine of Stanmore, L.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

  Kissin, L.

  Darcy (de Knayth), B.

  Leatherland, L.

  Darling of Hillsborough, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Darwen, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

  David, B.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Davies of Penrhys, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Longford, E.

  Denington, B.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Diamond, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

  Elwyn-Jones, L.

  McNair, L.

  Ennals, L.

  Mais, L.

  Esher, V.

  Meston, L.

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Milford, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Falkender, B.

  Mishcon, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Molloy, L.

  Fisher of Rednal, B.

  Monkswell, L.

  556

  Monson, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Morris of Kenwood, L.

  Shinwell, L.

  Morton of Shuna, L.

  Silkin of Dulwich, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Simon, V.

  Mulley, L.

  Soper, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Stamp, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Oram, L.

  Stewart of Fulham, L.

  Phillips, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

  Taylor of Mansfield, L.

  Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

  Rea, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Reilly, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Walston, L.

  Roberthall, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Whaddon, L.

  Rochester, L.

  White, B.

  Ross of Marnock, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Russell of Liverpool, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Wilson of Langside, L.

  Scanlon, L.

  Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

  Seear, B.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Seebohm, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  Serota, B.

  Wootton of Abinger, B.

  Shackleton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Airey of Abingdon, B.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Aldington, L.

  Cross, V.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Ampthill, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Arran, E.

  Denman, L.

  Astor, V.

  Donegall, M.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Dormer, L.

  Bauer, L.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Beaverbrook, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Beloff, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Belstead, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Effingham, E.

  Bethell, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Birdwood, L.

  Elles, B.

  Boardman, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Bolton, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Elton, L.

  Brain, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Brentford, V.

  Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Ferrers, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Ferrier, L.

  Broxbourne, L.

  Fisher, L.

  Bruce-Gardyne, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Freyberg, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Gainford, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Geddes, L.

  Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

  Gibson-Watt, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Gowrie, E.

  Carnock, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Granville of Eye, L.

  Cayzer, L.

  Gray, L.

  Chelmer, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Haig, E.

  Cox, B.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Craigton, L.

  Hanson, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Crawford and Balcarres, E.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  557

  Harvington, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Henley, L.

  Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

  Hives, L.

  Reay, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Home of the Hirsel, L.

  Renton, L.

  Hood, V.

  Renwick, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Richardson, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Rochdale, V.

  Ironside, L.

  Romney, E.

  Kaberry of Adel, L.

  Rootes, L.

  Kemsley, V.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Killearn, L.

  Sackville, L.

  Kilmany, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Kimball, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Kitchener, E.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Sandford, L.

  Lane-Fox, B.

  Savile, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Layton, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Shannon, E.

  Loch, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Long, V.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Somers, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Southborough, L.

  McFadzean, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Sudeley, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Marley, L.

  Swinton, E. [Teller.]

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Terrington, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Teviot, L.

  Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

  Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Townshend, M.

  Mottistone, L.

  Tranmire, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Moyola, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Munster, E.

  Ullswater, V.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Westbury, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Wigram, L.

  Peel, E.

  Windlesham, L.

  Pender, L.

  Wise, L.

  Perth, E.

  Wolfson, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Portland, D.

  Yarborough, E.

  Quinton, L.

  Young of Graffham, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
  6.27 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  28 Leave out Clause 8.
  29 Clause 9, page 5, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
  30 Leave out Schedule 6.
  The Commons disagree to the above amendments for the following Reason (No. 31):
  Because they are consequential on Lords Amendment No. 22 in respect of which the Commons have proposed Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 in lieu.
  [Motion No. 31A not moved.]
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move formally that this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 31.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 31.—(Lord Elton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  32 Clause 21, page 15, line 34, leave out ("the first").
  The Commons disagree to the above amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof
  33 Page 15, line 34, leave out ("first such").
  34 Page 15, line 43, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
  The Commons agree to the above amendment and have made the following consequential amendments to the Bill:
  35 Clause 100, page 72, line 11, leave out ("21").
  36 Page 72, line 16, leave out ("21 or").
  The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and 36, and do not insist on their Amendment No. 32, to which the Commons have disagreed.
  As my honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education made clear last week in another place, the Government accept the amendments made to Clause 21 in this House to delete the requirement for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to undertake an initial review of the new ILEA by 31st March 1991, and his discretionary power to undertake subsequent reviews. The amendments substitute a discretionary power to undertake a review by 31st March 1991. The amendments also delete the power to implement any changes in the light of a review by order. Such changes will therefore require fresh primary legislation.
  The strongest objection to Clause 21, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, has been to the proposal that there should be a power for my right honourable friend to re-allocate the new ILEA's functions by order. We have listened carefully to the arguments, put with great strength and feeling in this House in particular, that if the new administrative structure which we are establishing for education in inner London needs adjustment in the light of experience, then that adjustment should be made by primary legislation.
  On two points, however, the other place made further amendments to Clause 21. Those amendments are intended only to give full effect to those made in this House. First, the clause as amended by your Lordships retains a reference to "such report". There is now provision for only one report, of course, and Amendment No. 33 therefore substitutes a reference to "the report". Secondly, although this House deleted my right honourable friend's order-making power, references to that power remain in Clause 100. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 delete these references.
  I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these further amendments are sensible and necessary as well as being in line with the express wishes of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist in their Amendment No. 32, and do agree with the Commons on their Amendment No. 33 in lieu thereof; and that

  559
  the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendments Nos. 35 and 36.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, from these Back-Benches may I express my gratitude to my noble friend the Minister for recognising the rectitude of primary legislation. This was the issue which arose between myself and the noble Baroness, Lady David, on which of course, as was inevitable, the noble Baroness was right and I was wrong. However, at least I had the right aspirations. Those aspirations have been recognised by my noble friend the Minister, and I am indeed grateful not only to him but to the noble Baroness.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill
6.31 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments be now considered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill
  COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to Bill (100) as first printed by the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  1 Clause 1 page 2, line 3, after ("date") insert ("subject to subsection (3A) below").
  2 Page 2, leave out lines 5 to 7.
  3 Page 2, line 13, at end insert ("and").
  4 Page 2, leave out lines 14 and 15.
  5 Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(3A) A person does not qualify as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency on the qualifying date for those purposes unless—

  (a) the date referred to in subsection (3)(b) above fell within the period of five years ending immediately before the qualifying date, or

  (b) throughout the period beginning when he ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom and ending with the qualifying date, he has resided outside the United Kingom in connection with his occupation as a member, officer or servant of a Community institution, or

  (c) on the qualifying date, he is resident outside the United Kingdom to be with his spouse who—

  (i) on that date (if it is the appropriate date for qualifying) or on the appropriate date in the same year as that date for qualifying, qualifies as an overseas elector in respect of any constituency, or qualifies under section 3 of this Act in respect of an Assembly constituency, and is a British citizen, and

  (ii) satisfies the condition mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

  (4) The reference in subsection (3A)(b) above to a person ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom is, in the case of a person relying on registration in pursuance of a service declaration, a reference to his ceasing to have a service qualification or, if later, ceasing to be so resident.
  (4A) For the purposes of this section and sections 2 and 3 of this Act, the appropriate date for qualifying as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency, or for qualifying under section 3 of this Act in respect of an Assembly constituency, is the date by reference to which the register of parliamentary
  560
  electors or, as the case may be, the register under section 3 of this Act for the constituency concerned is prepared.")
  6 Clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
  ("(4A) In the case of a person relying on paragraph (b) of section 1(3A) of this Act, his overseas elector's declaration must in addition—

  (a) state that he will satisfy the condition mentioned in that paragraph, and

  (b) specify the Community institution of which he is a member, officer or servant.

  (4B) In the case of a person relying on section 1(3A)(c) of this Act, his overseas elector's declaration must in addition state—

  (a) that he is and will on the qualifying date be resident outside the United Kingdom to be with his spouse, and

  (b) that his spouse will, on that date (if it is the appropriate date for qualifying) or on the appropriate date in the same year as that date for qualifying, qualify as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency, or qualify under section 3 of this Act in respect of an Assembly constituency, and be a British citizen and will satisfy the condition mentioned in section 1(3A)(b) of this Act,

  and specify the Community institution of which his spouse is a member, officer or servant.").
  7 Clause 3, page 4, line 21, after ("date") insert ("(subject to subsection (4A) below)").
  8 Page 4, leave out lines 23 to 25.
  9 Page 4, line 31, at end insert ("and").
  10 Page 4, leave out lines 32 and 33.
  11 Page 4, line 39, at end insert—
  ("(4A) A peer does not qualify under this section in respect of a constituency on the qualifying date for those purposes unless—

  (a) the date referred to in subsection (4)(b) above fell within the period of five years ending immediately before the qualifying date, or

  (b) throughout the period beginning when he ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom and ending with the qualifying date, he has resided outside the United Kingdom in connection with his occupation as a member, officer or servant of a Community institution, or

  (c) on the qualifying date, he is resident outside the United Kingdom to be with spouse, who—

  (i) on that date (if it is the appropriate date for qualifying) or on the appropriate date in the same year as that date for qualifying, qualified as an overseas elector in respect of any parliamentary constituency, or qualifies under this section in respect of any constituency, and is a British citizen, and

  (ii) satisfies the condition mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

  (4B) The reference in subsection (4A)(b) above to a person ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom is, in the case of a person relying on registration in pursuance of a service declaration, a reference to him ceasing to have a service qualification or, if later, ceasing to be so resident.").
  12 The Commons disagreed to the above amendments for the following reason:
  Because it is not appropriate to extend further franchise for overseas electors beyond the five year period by reference to a person's occupation.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12.
  For those who do not know the long history of this series of amendments, it amounts to one amendment and a number of consequential amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, moved an amendment at the Committee stage of this Bill in which she explained to the Committee that she wished British citizens

  561
  working for the European Community to have the same rights as diplomats serving overseas and members of the Armed Forces serving overseas—namely, that they could vote in elections in this country and in elections to the European Parliament.
  At the Report stage the noble Baroness sought to move an amendment which would include spouses, and at that point the Government said that they would pick up these two amendments and, together, bring them back at Third Reading, which indeed they did. Therefore, the amendments which were first agreed—the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, at the Committee stage which was agreed by your Lordships, and the Government's substitute for that amendment and for the other amendment about spouses—are the ones with which the Commons have disagreed. It is not some nasty, violent, Left-wing, anarchist amendment from these Benches, but a Government amendment with which the Commons have disagreed.
  At this stage I should also point out that when the amendment of the noble Baroness was first agreed to it had the support of the Front Bench of the Labour Party in this House in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who I am sorry not to see in his place tonight. However, doubtless the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will be substituting for him—poor chap!
  When the Bill returned to the other place the Labour Party apparently did not like that amendment. As noble Lords know, the Labour Party believes that many people who live and work overseas are criminals and tax dodgers, and although it does not actually say that to the Members of the European Community, it does not believe that the franchise should be extended to those people who do not pay tax in this country. That is a curious concept because I am quite sure that a number of Labour Party supporters in this country do not pay tax in this country, and I hope that the Labour Party will not suggest that in future those people should be disfranchised.
  We have this extremely curious situation where an arrangement was reached by the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench in another place in order to remove from this Bill the franchise which your Lordships had granted to people working for the European Community. Therefore, we have to consider whether we ought to send the Bill back again to the Commons.
  I am told—and let me say straight away that I have no evidence whatever for this—that one of the reasons the Government acceded to this was that the Opposition in another place (that is to say, the Labour Party Opposition) warned the Government that if they did not remove this provision from the Bill, they would get nasty on the Bill dealing with sports grounds and alcohol, and that they would not allow it to go through the other place in one day. Whether or not that is true I do not know, but I should be interested to hear whether that is the case from both the Government and the Labour Party.
  Even if it is not the case, the fact is that there was an arrangement between the two Front Benches in
  562
  another place which has cost servants of this country working for the Common Market their vote, not only in elections in this country but also in European elections. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, pointed out at an earlier stage of this Bill, after the five-year period has come to an end they will remain the only people working in Brussels who will not have a vote in elections to the body for which they work. That is clearly scandalous and a mistake, and it is clearly the duty of your Lordships' House to put it right.
  When it comes to the question of elections in this country, it might be said that the House of Commons is the place that should decide who are the people who shall vote for them. To my mind there is very little which is further from the truth at the end of the day. In the strange electoral system that we have at the moment—and I shall not go into that yet again—it is possible to have an elected dictatorship; and this Chamber remains the final backstop against a contrived decision, a cosy getting-together of two large parties determined to remove the rights of minorities to vote in elections to the Parliament in this country.
  It is on those grounds that I beg to move that your Lordships resist this move from the Commons and that we insist on the amendment that we passed at the Third Reading stage, which I repeat, was a Government amendment.
  Moved, That this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12.—(Lord Tordoff.)
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition would speak next so that we might know what the Opposition view is this time round. However, since neither the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition nor the spokesman on behalf of the Opposition has seen fit to speak, I thought that I would take the floor now.
  We seem to have reached a rather farcical situation where a Government amendment is being resisted in this House. I totally accept that at no time did my noble friend the Minister give an undertaking that that amendment would be supported. In fairness to my noble friend I must make it quite clear that, although the Government took over the amendment, it was on the basis of drafting and not on the basis of policy behind the amendment.
  In this case I have been given to understand from the Opposition Benches that, instead of them voting with us, they will be voting against restoring the amendment to the Bill. However, that again is hearsay, and of course we shall wait to hear whether the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench changes his mind, as they changed their minds in the Commons. Therefore, there is no reason why he should not change it this time.
  On the other hand, this situation may be farcical in constitutional terms, but it is a disaster for those officials who have seen their right to vote, which was passed in this House by quite a large majority, being taken away for reasons which, frankly, are not serious or do not have a solid foundation. I consider that this is disrespectful to those officials who are working in the Community.

  563
  What surprised me more than anthing else were—if I may use the word without any disrespect to Members of the other place—the fatuous arguments which were put forward when the amendment was rejected. The arguments were that it was not fair to discriminate against British citizens working as officials in the Community as opposed to those working for ICI or other companies. However, the fact of the matter is that both your Lordships' House and another place had an opportunity to vote to give those people the vote in national and European elections, and in both Houses that was rejected. Therefore, that argument is no longer valid.
  Those of us who daily or quite frequently have to work with British officials in the institutions of the Community, from the President of the European Court of Justice downwards to the last clerk in the Commission, are continuously having to consider vital British interests. That seems to have escaped most people.
  These servants of Britain are working in Community institutions, and not of course entirely for Britain because they are international civil servants. But I would ask: which French, German, Italian, Dutch, Danish or other official is going to work all night and all day to do their best for British interests? The only officials who will be doing that will be British officials. I therefore find it lamentable that this vote should not be given to them.
  It is not a question of discrimination. This was recognised in the British Nationality Act. Their position as servants was recognised within the context of being put on a level with serving diplomats outside this country, and with those in the services overseas. That was recognised in the British Nationality Act, and I cannot see why any grounds have been put forward to deny similar rights in the case of voting.
  The issue of voting is fundamental. I am sorry that British citizens other than British officials did not get the right to vote. It was a Labour Government which ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights in which it clearly says that every citizen shall have the right to vote in elections—and that does not state whether they happen to reside in the country of their nationality or any other. Every citizen of a country has a right to vote. This was one of the covenants ratified by a British Labour Government. I am sorry to see that they are reneging on an undertaking which I should have thought was fundamental to democratic rights.
  Having said that, all is not lost. Although a majority voted on 28th March this year to deny British citizens their rights, and in another place on 26th June British officials were denied their rights, I am happy to say that on 28th and 29th June this year, at the Milan summit, the United Kingdom Government, as one of the members of the European Council, in fact supported the proposals of the People's Committee, which was set up after the Fontainebleau summit.
  In that communiqué, which came out supporting the People's Committee, it says that every effort must be made by all member states to ensure that member states grant the right to their citizens within the European Community to vote in at least European parliamentary elections. I am therefore particularly
  564
  sorry that between 28th March and the 28th and 29th June the Government seemed to have changed their position and did not take up the opportunity to vote on the amendments which were before this House and which went back to another place.
  In view of the fact that it was supported in the Lords and rejected in the Commons, I, personally, should like to keep it that way and make it known to the British officials that I work with that this House supported their democratic rights and that they were taken away in another place. I hope that the Government will see fit to introduce legislation which will give British officials and all British citizens resident in the Community a right to vote as British citizens.
  Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have no idea, either, how my Front Bench is going to vote in this matter, but I, for one, as a member of the Labour Party, voted for this amendment the last time round, and I propose to do so again. There is a simple issue involved here, and it is one which should be close to the heart of the Labour Party. It was close to the heart of the Labour Party in this House not so long ago, but we seem to have been overriden by our colleagues in another place. They are not going to override me.
  As members of the Labour Party and socialists in a quiet way, we are democrats; and the essential feature of democracy is that as many people as possible should be entitled and enabled to vote. That is central and crucial to our democratic system. We should be trying to extend the franchise as far as we can.
  Older members of the Labour Party will remember that this principle was of great help to us in 1945, when Mr. Attlee's great Labour Government were brought to power to a large extent on the strength of the overseas vote of the British forces. The same principle applies whether people are in the forces or whether they are servants of government in Brussels or elsewhere—or, incidentally, whether they work for ICI or anybody else, although that is not the question really before us tonight. The question is a simple one. We were right when we voted on this the last time around. The other place has been wrong to attempt to change this amendment, and I hope that we carry it again tonight.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I confess that I have no strong feelings either way about whether or not British officials working overseas for the EEC have the vote in United Kingdom elections. I have never been an enthusiast for Britain's membership of the EEC, as I have stated on earlier occasions. What I feel strongly about is horse-trading and back-door deals between the Front Benches of the two main parties in another place to the exclusion of representatives of all other parties and to the exclusion of Back-Benchers of all parties, and not least Conservative Back-Benchers, to say nothing of your Lordships. Unless we can be assured that there was no back-door deal, I hope that noble Lords will support the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in the Division Lobby.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it seems that I am in great demand this evening. That is something

  565
  quite new so far as I am concerned. I am certainly going to enjoy it while I can. I have listened to the arguments which have been put forward so far. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, seemed to imply that these were Government amendments which the House passed. Of course, they were not. All that the Government were doing, as the noble Lord well knows, was tidying up what the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, did. The Government were putting it in proper order, and I think we should not complain about that.
  The noble Lord also said that the Labour Party did not believe that the franchise should be extended to tax dodgers, criminals, etc. That is absolutely right: we do not. Who does? I hope that nobody in this House believes that people of that sort should be allowed to vote. But the argument is rather different. The argument was put by the Minister, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. David Mellor, in another place on 25th June, when the House of Commons considered the matter. If I may quote from a couple of paragraphs, he said at col. 883:
  "It is common knowledge that some Conservative Members wanted a more generous extension of the franchise to British citizens overseas than the five years contained in the Bill. It is equally clear that some Opposition Members would have preferred more modest proposals to succeed than those agreed by the House. In the proper spirit which I think should guide us when discussing issues relating to the electoral rules, a compromise was reached, and the five-year provision was agreed."
  A compromise was reached by the House of Commons, and there was no Division at Third Reading. He goes on to say, in the same column:
  "Secondly, there is the question whether it is appropiate for the House to make further distinctions between officials and people working overseas privately.
  "We honour what has been dignified by a historical position in our electoral arrangements—the privilege of voting accorded to members of the armed services and of the Diplomatic Corps".
  He goes on:
  "I should be hard put to it to say that someone who works for the European Community and undoubtedly does valuable service, as do about 1,500 of our fellow citizens, is necessarily any more worthy of being permitted to vote in a British election than someone who represents in Brussels the interests of ICI, ICL or any of our other great companies".
  I will conclude here. He said:
  "In logic, it is impossible to defend the Lords' amendment. If we are prepared to drive that wedge into the five-year proposal we should accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition".
  That, in fact, is what the Government said. I believe that there is logic in it and I hope that this House will agree that there is logic in it. It would be quite irrational, indeed absurd, to select a given number of people from among many thousands more and give them a privilege that the other thousands did not enjoy. I think that that is the rationale of the Government's position and the rationale of the Opposition's position. An agreement was come to. Make no mistake about that. There was an agreement and I believe that the Labour Party is honour bound to keep that agreement; and I shall make plain in a moment what we shall do this evening.
  But before I do that I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Howie that we believe that as many people as possible should be allowed to vote. I think that he drew a completely wrong comparison when he mentioned the forces overseas who were entitled to
  566
  vote in 1945. That is a purely false comparison to draw. Those people were resident in this country and would have been delighted to continue to have been resident in this country and did not want to go overseas to fight the Germans or anybody else. They were in quite a different position from people in the EC who have decided to make their residence, to pay their taxes, to make their way and make their earnings in another country and not this country. They decided not to reside here, many of them on a permanent basis. I think that the five-year period in which they are allowed to vote is a good enough test, and in fact a good enough concession.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is aware that the services still have the vote. It was not only in 1945; they continue to have the vote whether they remain resident in this country or not. Secondly, is not the noble Lord aware that there are many people who are working in the Commission—indeed, to give one example, the President of the European Court of Justice—who are requested, earnestly requested, by the Government of the day to go and serve as the British representatives in the various bodies of the European Community? It is these people who are being deprived of the right to vote. They are serving British interests daily. It is not a question of being somebody in a business capacity who is there to earn a living and make a profit.
  I proposed an amendment that these people should have had the right to vote. The Labour Party had the opportunity, if they thought that that was right, to vote; but it was the one case in your Lordships' House where the Labour Party were against that opportunity. So I think that that argument is not a valid argument for the noble Lord to use. But I would remind him again that there are people in the European Commission and in the European Court of Justice who are beseeched by the Government of the day to go and serve as Britons in these jobs. It is not quite the same as anybody going there to earn their living.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that was a very long intervention by the noble Baroness and an interesting one. The position of the British forces is surely that they are serving Her Majesty's Government and, indeed, they are serving Her Majesty. They are not serving the Community as such or any other body. They are serving Her Majesty. They are in quite a separate and different position. In regard to the other officials, they serve the Community and they do so for their career purposes and prospects; but nevertheless they have decided to take that career, to earn their living in another country and have no intention of coming home to this country.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will give way because I believe he is in error. Surely, the provisions in the Bill preclude people who have decided to live permanently abroad because people have to make a declaration that it is ultimately their intention to return to this country, within the terms of the Bill as it stands with or without the amendment. To say that these people have decided permanently to live abroad—which I think is what I heard the noble Lord say—is incorrect.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the five-year limitation applies and they will be entitled to vote for five years. I think I am right. It is only if they decide to absent themselves from this country for a period of longer than five years that they would lose their vote. I think that that is the true position. I do not think that I have misunderstood it at all and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, agrees.
  If I may continue to answer my noble friend Lord Howie, the Labour Party does believe that the franchise should be extended to as many people as possible who are in law entitled to vote. But that does not necessarily mean that we believe that the franchise should be extended to people who have decided to move their residence, almost permanently, or permanently, outside this country. Indeed, the Bill itself extends the franchise and in that respect and for that reason the Labour Party supported the Bill.
  I can well understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, was disappointed because her amendment has not been accepted by the other place. But I think that we have to accept that the provisions of the Representation of the People Bill are—and I repeat this—the result of an agreement between the Government and the Opposition without very much, if any, dissent from the other parties in the House of Commons.
  A noble Lord: That is totally untrue.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is not totally untrue. If you read the record you will find that it shows that. As I said at Report stage in this House, it is far better that alterations to electoral arrangements are made with a large measure of agreement; and although your Lordships may very well have been perfectly entitled to express a view, as indeed you did, over votes for British employees of the EC institutions, it would in my view be unwise and perhaps improper to insist—
  A noble Lord: No, no!
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, perhaps improper, to insist on that view in the face of the overwhelming opposition of another place.
  As an unelected body we really cannot insist that the Commons accept our view of the electoral arrangements for election to the other place and to other assemblies. It seems to me that there might have been some case for pressing our view a little further, but only a little, if the voting in the other place on our amendment had been finely or more evenly balanced. But it was not. The Commons voted to disagree by 327 votes to 13. In face of such an overwhelming rejection of our amendment, it would be foolish, I think, and unproductive to insist upon it.
  A noble Lord: Oh no!
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord wanted me to get up and to have my say. Now let me have my say. How about that? The noble Lord will have his turn in a minute. I have to say this. I have to remind the SDP and the Liberal Benches that during the Bill's passage through the Commons neither the Liberal Party nor the SDP proposed any amendment
  568
  to improve the voting rights of EC employees. They did not do that at all in the House of Commons. Neither in fact was there any discussion of the issue at any stage of the Bill in the other place, so that the House of Commons in fact had decided that this was not a relevant issue and the issue was therefore raised by the noble Baroness in this House. It was taken up by the Liberals and by the SDP Members here.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords—
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it was responded to by my own party certainly, but we are talking at the moment about the Liberals and the SDP because the Liberal Party, in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has taken up the cudgels tonight and therefore we are entitled to examine their record on the issue we have examined just one part of it. We know that in the House of Commons they sat back and did nothing about this great cause they are espousing tonight. I repeat: neither the Liberals nor the SDP did anything about it.
  What did they do on the 25th June when the Lords amendment was voted upon in the House of Commons? There were only 10 Liberal Members present, including the tellers; about half their strength. There were only three SDP Members present at that time; less than half their strength. The issue was considered so important by the SDP in another place that the Leader of the SDP did not bother to turn up. That was how important it was to the SDP and the Liberals in the House of Commons when this amendment, which we passed in this place, was discussed. That showed the commitment of the Alliance to our amendment. So I hope that they will not attack the Labour Party, because in fact the Labour Party came to an arrangement and it now wishes to honour that arrangement, and that is what we propose to do tonight.
  I have to say that if your Lordships insist upon the amendment tonight, there could be quite serious consequences, not only because there would be a deterioration in the relationships between ourselves and another place but also because I understand that if the Commons, too, decide to insist, the coming into operation of the rest of the Bill would be delayed. In that case the many very desirable parts of the Bill and the many desirable provisions in it, on which there is unanimity, would be delayed for up to a year. Do we really want to see that? I think not. I therefore hope that having made his point, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, having made her point, the noble Lord will decide this evening not to press his luck and not to press his Motion. I have to say to your Lordships that if he presses it, I shall recommend my noble friends to vote against it.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think that was one of the most remarkable speeches I have had the good fortune to hear since I became a Member of your Lordships' House. The one thing the noble Lord did not explain was why he took exactly the opposite position when this matter was debated and voted upon on the last occasion. I see from the Division List on the "absurd" amendment (as described by the noble Lord,

  569
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon) that his name appeared as one of those who favoured giving the vote to officials of the Eurpean Community. Therefore what is absurd today was apparently wholly sensible on the last occasion when this matter was debated in your Lordships' House.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: Of course.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I said that it would be absurd for this House to press its point.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord apparently did not take that view on the local government legislation that we were voting on a few moment ago. I notice that there has been a rather remarkable change in his position.
  I now turn to what is presumably intended to be a serious speech made by the noble Lord. I think the one thing we would all agree upon is that there was an agreement entered into by the Labour Party and the Government in the House of Commons. But, if I may say so, that was not wholly related to the merits of the proposition. What the Labour Party said in the House of Commons was that if the Government did not agree to make certain amendments to this Bill on the lines that they wanted, they would block progress on the Bill. That was a very powerful weapon in their hands because this was a constitutional Bill which had to be taken at all stages on the Floor of the House of Commons. And so that is what this great understanding and agreement is all about.
  In fact, it was a piece of parliamentary pressure. One can argue, if one likes, that it was legitimate and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, would certainly choose to use that language about it; but some of us might perhaps describe it rather differently. Certainly I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, were he here, would want to refer to it very differently. Unhappily, he is not with us this evening, just as was the case on the Third Reading of the Bill when the position of NATO officials was discussed. Their position of course is rather similar to that of EEC officials. Perhaps I may quote to your Lordships what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench on this amendment. I quote from col. 1181 of the Official Report of 28th March:
  "I have had the privilege when visiting various institutions of the European Community and its Parliament of meeting some of our officials in Europe who have brought great distinction to the Community itself and its service, and if I may say so, to this country. The more British people we can send to be officials in this institution while we continue to belong to it—and many of us are in favour of continuing our membership, while some of us are not quite so fervent—"—
  one can certainly say that again!—
  "the better. I am only going to say that, having been in the Community for the number of years they have, to deprive them of a vote seems to me to be completely and absolutely wrong. I would put them in line, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, with the members of the Armed Forces and the Diplomatic Corps. This is an amendment to which the Opposition would give favourable consideration".
  570
  How the Front Bench of the Opposition can pretend that those stirring words delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, from that Front Bench represent now exactly the opposite of their true position really beggars the understanding of any person who adopts a rather balanced attitude to the question. Certainly, speaking for my noble friends on these Benches, we will vote in exactly the same way as we did on the last occasion. The implications of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said about the EEC officials represented in my view one of the least happy parts of a very unhappy speech.
  Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly need not detain your Lordships with the history of these amendments. In their original form they were moved in Committee by my noble friend Lady Elles and they were carried, against the Government's advice, on a Division. As a matter of courtesy to your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, I moved further amendments on Third Reading to make sure that the Bill was fully in order; rather complicated amendments, as it turned out. However, I did my best to make it clear that those amendments were entirely without prejudice to the advice which my right honourable friend might give to the other place when the Bill returned there, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Elles for acknowledging that.
  I must say that I found the speech of the noble Lord opposite one of the most entertaining and revealing speeches for the noble Lord to make, speaking on behalf of his party, that I can possibly imagine. I admire his persistent batting on what, for him, must have been a very sticky wicket indeed. But it is not my task now to discomfort him any further.
  The Government certainly mean no disrespect to British citizens working in the institutions of the European Community. There can be absolutely no doubt about their commitment to British interests or about the earnestness of their desire for the right to vote. But the same is true of so many other people who would not have the right to vote under this Bill. The way to make progress on this matter is to extend the period during which British citizens may qualify as overseas electors across the board, not to single out particular groups because we happen to think that they are especially worthy. If any of your Lordships should feel that these views are held only by Government Front Bench spokesmen I recommend that they look at the proceedings in another place—which clearly has been done—and there your Lordships will find that the same sentiments are expressed from the Back-Benches by those who had originally voted for an extension of the franchise to all British citizens resident abroad no matter how long they had been away.
  My noble friend Lady Elles expressed the hope that further legislation might come forward in due course. She referred to the Milan summit; and the People's Committee. I can confirm that the Government backed the Milan agreement and that the Government remain committed to a further extension of the franchise at a future date. But that extension must treat British citizens in the public service and the private sector in exactly the same way. My right honourable friend has now made clear on several occasions his personal commitment to a further

  571
  extension of the franchise, but my noble friend will understand that in the nature of things I cannot put a timetable on that commitment this evening.
  When these amendments were previously before your Lordships some felt that they would be given a fair wind if only because the matter had not been considered in another place. The view was also expressed—and I think I may say that it is the traditional view, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said—that representation of the people is not a matter on which your Lordships' House has the final say, however important our role in revising and improving the legislation that comes before us. The matter has now specifically been considered in another place and its view clearly and decisively expressed.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that this House does not have the final say on anything, and that this Bill is in no way different from any other?
  Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, at the end of the day, the matter of representation and election is more a matter for the other place than for your Lordships' House. I have nothing more to say. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will agree that it would be inappropriate to press his amendment further.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I notice that I have not had a reply to the suggestion that this deal had something to do with the drink at football matches Bill. But we shall let that pass. Clearly the other place has the final say. Clearly on matters of representation of the people this House also has a say. Were it, for instance, to be decided between the Front Bench of the Government and the Front Bench of the Opposition to delay the period of voting in a parliamentary election, then this House would have a big say; and so it should. It would have the final say, as my noble friend reminds me.
  I am not at all convinced that we have had anything to ameliorate the position of the people for whom we are arguing. I know that both the Government and the Opposition are painted into a corner. I know that they will march through the Lobbies together hand in hand. But, frankly, this is one of those occasions where I do not care by how much we are beaten because it is a matter of principle and we shall, therefore, divide the House.
  7.15 p.m.
  On Question, That this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 12.
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 142.

  DIVISION NO. 3

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Burton of Coventry, B.

  Alport, L.

  Chitnis, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Darwen, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Banks, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Feversham, L.

  Broadbridge, L.

  Grey, E.

  Brockway, L.

  Hampton, L.

  572

  Hanworth, V.

  Ogmore, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Seear, B.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Simon, V.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Hunt, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Walston, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  McNair, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Meston, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  Monson, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Beaverbrook, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Beloff, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Kitchener, E.

  Bernstein, L.

  Lane-Fox, B.

  Biddulph, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Layton, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Long, V.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Broxbourne, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  McFadzean, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Marley, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Coleraine, L.

  Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

  Collison, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Merrivale, L.

  Cox, B.

  Middleton, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Crathorne, L.

  Morton of Shuna, L.

  Crawford and Balcarres, E.

  Mottistone, L.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Munster, E.

  David, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Davidson, V.

  Oram, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Peel, E.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Poltimore, L.

  Donegall, M.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Dormer, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Renton, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Rochdale, V.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Romney, E.

  Elton, L.

  Ross of Marnock, L.

  Ferrier, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Fisher, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Gallacher, L.

  Savile, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Glanusk, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Silkin of Dulwich, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Southborough, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hanson, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Harvington, L.

  Swinton, E. [Teller.]

  Henley, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Heycock, L.

  Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

  Hives, L.

  Thoraeycroft, L.

  Home of the Hirsel, L.

  Townshend, M.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Tranmire, L.

  Ironside, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Irving of Dartford, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Kaberry of Adel, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Kimball, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  573

  Vivian, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Westbury, L.

  Young of Graffham, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Ypres, E.

  Wolfson, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1985
7.22 p.m.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1985 laid before this House on 17th June be approved. The order is before your Lordships today because levies in excess of 1 per cent. require an affirmative resolution of each House under Section 12(6) of the Industrial Training Act 1982. Your Lordships will be aware of the importance of the engineering industry, which remains the largest manufacturing sector in terms of employment. Engineering output rose in 1984 by 4·2 per cent. and the fastest growth was in the electronics sector, emphasising the need for high level skills training in the industry. It is important to ensure that all firms play their part in training and we must ensure above all else that economic growth is not hindered by skill shortages as has sometimes happened in the past.
This levy is expected to raise about £156 million before taking exemption into account and about £20 million after exemption. The levy will cover a period of 12 months to 31st August 1985 and is in two main parts. First, in the mainstream engineering establishments, with a levy of 1 per cent. of payroll in respect of establishments with 1,000 or less employees, 0·06 per cent. of this levy is non-exemptable. In larger establishments, 0·06 per cent. is non-exemptable in respect of the first 1,000 employees and 0·054 per cent. is non-exemptable in respect of the remainder.
The non-exemptable levy will be used to meet the major part of the board's operating costs. Your Lordships will be pleased to learn of the continuing reduction in non-exemptable levy which only two years ago stood at 0·065 per cent. The product of the exemptable levy will be used for training grants and initiatives considered necessary by the board. Establishments where the number of employees does not exceed 40 will be exempt from levy, but may still qualify for certain grants from the board.
We have establishments in the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry sector, where the levy is in two parts. For off-site employees, no levy is payable by establishments of up to 30 employees; for establishments of more than 30 employees, 1 per cent. of the total wages is payable of which 0·15 per cent. will be non-exemptable. For site employees, no levy will be paid on the first £50,000 of emoluments and for emoluments over £50,000 a nonexemptable levy of 1·12 per cent. will be payable. That is the reason for the necessity for the affirmative resolution which is before us today.
The employer and employee members of the Mechanical and Electrical Construction Industry
574
Sector Committee agree to the levy unanimously and the proposals were subsequently endorsed by the board without dissent. Letters of support have been received from the two employer organisations in the sector. There is thus consensus in the industry for the proposals, as required by the 1982 Industrial Training Act. I therefore recommend the order to your Lordships. It has widespread support and is very necessary to meet industry's future training needs. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 17th June be approved. [26th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Young of Graffham .)
7.26 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in speaking to the Motion, which was so well put and so well detailed by the Minister, I take a point that he mentioned. It is related to the engineering industry, which, as the Minister said, is our biggest single employer of labour. It is a fact that over the last 10 to 15 years the engineering industry has, in total, lost more jobs than mining and steel put together. If the country is really to put its act together on the question of the export potential of manufacturing industries, this is the major industry that has to be able to take the lion's share of that.
Of course, the training under the Engineering Industry Training Board's schemes is rather different from what it was some years ago when I myself was in engineering, both in the locomotive sector and in the turbine manufacturing sector, and when we were dealing with the more traditional forms of engineering. The journeyman or the tradesman on the job very often then took it upon himself, by his own self-appointment, to train some youngsters. But we are now dealing with a very rapid advance in technology with which we have to keep up.
I believe that the measure goes a long way towards what I think is a desirable situation. We can always say that it could have been more and it could have been earlier, but that is not the case and, anyway, we do not live in that type of world. Only today, I was discussing these proposals with a Member of your Lordships' House who was a very distinguished chairman of the Engineering Industry Training Board, my noble friend Lord Scanlon, who probably knows as much about the background and the origins of these schemes as any Member of your Lordships' House. He said that this is the sort of thing for which we have been fighting for years. It has, perhaps, come a little later than it might have done and it is not, perhaps, of the dimension that one would have wanted. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction.
It is a fact that, unless we train our youngsters in the new techniques that are coming in, such as new computers, ribbon techniques on machines and so on, we shall lose out to our competitors. My one worry, and I am sure that it is the worry of all your Lordships as well as of the nation as a whole, is that it will be a tragedy of immense proportions if, after the training is complete, it is wasted because there are no worthwhile jobs for these youngsters to move into. Nevertheless, I think it is a move in the right direction. It is an attempt to nurture and encourage our seed corn, and on that basis, I welcome it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young, for the clear way in which he has introduced this order. Perhaps I may say at once that we too are happy to accept it, our only doubt being whether a levy based normally on only 1 per cent. of payroll is adequate to meet training needs in engineering.
I recognise that this is not the occasion for a further general debate on industrial training, following the debate we had three months ago on the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology on education and training for new technologies, but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without reminding the Minister that in their report the Select Committee stressed that in this country the link between training and commercial profitability is not recognised sufficiently to encourage widespread investment in training. The committee called for an effective national training policy together with a clearer indication of where responsibility for the funding of training should lie. More to the point—this is highly relevant to the order now before us—they recommended the introduction of a national training levy, with remissions for those carrying out training of the required standard, not simply in the engineering sector but in all areas of industry and of commerce.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, does not need to be reminded that there are many parts of industry in which there are no longer training boards, and where in my view training is inadequate in both quantity and quality. I remain firmly of the opinion that we need to return to some form of overall statutory framework for training in order to ensure that as the economy picks up and unemployment at last falls (as, irrespective of our party allegiance, we must all hope soon happens) skill shortages will not again hold us back and local training needs fail to be filled.
In replying to the debate on the report of which I have spoken, the noble Lord, Lord Young, undertook to consider this matter carefully. I must now ask him what further action the Government propose to take by means of tax remissions to firms, statutory sanctions or in any other way, to ensure that our training standards, not only for young people—I pay tribute to what the Government are already doing in this field under the youth training scheme—but also for adults, enable us to remain internationally competitive.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful for the great degree of unanimity expressed this evening and for the welcome to this order given by the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Rochester. It is indeed a matter of congratulation that everyone, not only in industry but in your Lordships' House, should be in favour of this small extension in the amount of training that takes place in engineering. But engineering is a fast changing field and the establishment of a vital skills agency alongside the engineering industry training board shows that at long last the engineering sector is beginning to take training seriously and is beginning to adopt a professional approach to this most vital of areas—vital if we are to create the future as we should all like to see it.
576
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, reminded me about the earlier debate. It is a responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but nevertheless it is worth reminding the House that since that debate took place the very foundation of training in this country, the two-year youth training scheme, has come in—again, unanimously welcomed by the CBI, the TUC, by those in education and by local authorities. I hope that in the future that will be seen to be a watershed in the way in which we look at the training of young people. Only yesterday the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission announced that the new adult training strategy was now beginning to have effect as it comes in up and down the land. But more than anything else I believe there is a growing awareness that training is something in which we must all indulge and look at with great seriousness. I, for one, am not too sure that industrial training boards are the right answer; but the right answer we have to find. That matter is with my right honourable friend, and I hope very much that we shall hear from him before very long. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Licensing Laws
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they will consider some more general reform of the licensing laws.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so perhaps I may say that I am most grateful to the Front Bench for having made time available to take this short debate and also to the various noble Lords and noble Baronesses who are to speak later.
This Question, and the reason I speak tonight, arises to a certain extent from an Unstarred Question which was put down and debated by the late Lord Spens in May 1983. Perhaps I may in passing pay tribute to him as it is to a certain extent in his memory that I carried on the work that he started so ably in trying to seek reform of the licensing laws.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, he was a man of great vision and enterprise and I was very privileged to work with him—indeed, I worked with him until his untimely death.
At that time there was a growing feeling that the licensing laws were increasingly out of date and no longer relevant to the needs of modern society. What has given inpetus to the need for change is the impact that liberalisation would have on both tourism and employment. Many areas of our national life are affected by the licensing laws, and various noble Lords will emphasise different aspects, but I want to concentrate on two sectors that are very close together but where the requirements are totally different. The first is the on licence trade—in other words, the public houses. This has been stimulated a great deal by organisations in that field such as the Brewers' Society

577
and the National Union of Licensed Victuallers. I have the impression that both these organisations which speak for a very large section of the industry are in favour of flexibility.
How flexibility can be achieved is obviously a matter for legislation but there seems little doubt that the experience which Scotland has had over the past few years has shown that flexibility is a great success. Independent surveys have shown that there is no connection between pub opening hours and alcoholism. Indeed, it may well be that alcoholism and other related problems such as dangerous driving have declined as a result of flexibility and freedom of choice in Scotland. I know that the Government have been conducting an experiment, and it seems to me high time that the report was published and that the rest of the United Kingdom was brought into line with what is happening in Scotland where things have obviously gone very well since flexibility was introduced.
It is also estimated that if flexibility was introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom on the same basis as in Scotland something in the order of 25,000 new jobs would be created; a conservative estimate but an important and useful contribution to economic activity.
The second area of activity that I should like to mention is the restaurant trade. Here I must declare an interest. I hold an honorary position as president of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain. That association, normally referred to as the RAGB, is a small but growing association representing independent restaurateurs as opposed to large hotels and other catering groups. It has done sterling work in the promotion of increased standards of catering and in improving quality in the trade.
There was a time when English catering had a low reputation. That has changed completely. I believe that English catering now competes very favourably. Indeed, the RAGB has participated by stimulating competitions to improve the quality of catering among British restaurateurs.
The position of the restaurant trade in the licensing scene is quite absurd and completely out of line with the rest of Europe. People visit a restaurant not to drink, but to eat. In this case drink is an accompaniment and a complement to the food. It is quite absurd that one cannot take wine, beer or other alcoholic beverages at any time of the day other than when one happens to be eating. This rather bizarre practice in the United Kingdom at present strikes all overseas visitors—and I emphasise that the restaurant trade and the whole of the beverage industry is an important part of the tourist trade—as rather archaic, as indeed it is.
It therefore follows that if the restaurant trade is an important part of the tourist trade, we ought to bring it into line with the rest of Europe. It is calculated—and again these are only estimates—that liberalisation of the licensing laws would create some 50,000 jobs in the hotel, restaurant and catering industries. I could go on for a long time, as there are many other examples, but I am sure that other noble Lords will mention them.
Before concluding, I wish to mention one specific point. In February my noble friend Lord Harmar
578
Nicholls introduced a Private Member's Bill to make some very small modification to the licensing laws. His very worthwhile Bill has now passed all it stages. However, my noble friend's Bill touches only the tip of the iceberg. The whole issue of licensing reform needs to be tackled on a much wider scale. It is this point which I hope the Government will be addressing in a more positive manner.
What I hope I have done in the remarks I have briefly made is to illustrate that reform of the licensing laws is an area where the Government could create jobs at zero cost, and provide increased freedom of choice in an area where it is obviously much needed and long overdue. I hope therefore that Her Majesty's Government will be able to indicate that they propose to introduce legislation in this very area in the near future.
7.44 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for giving me an opportunity to speak yet again on the subject of changing the licensing laws of this country. I spoke to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord. Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to which the noble Viscount has just referred. Since that time—in fact, only this afternoon—I learnt of a very interesting piece of information which I believe is relevant. It comes from a booklet published by the Brewers' Society which some noble Lords may have read. It reveals a very surprising fact, and that is that the United Kingdom is an example of moderation in drinking habits. In the light of recent events in football grounds and so on many of your Lordships may find that surprising. However, among 28 countries having similar standards of living, and so on, this country ranks twenty-first in terms of per capita consumption, and twenty-seventh in terms of the death rate count from cirrhosis of the liver. Those figures may provide grounds for some people to be complacent, but they surely give one grounds to deduce that the kind of abuses of alcohol and the patterns of drinking in this country which have given cause for alarm recently are probably and almost certainly due to a fairly small minority of people.
We might perhaps also deduce that such abuses are part of the pattern of drinking to which the present licensing laws contribute. I refer of course to the kind of concentrated drinking that takes place in the evening when people go to pubs, which have historically been places having an "Andy Capp" image—if I may use that expression—where people spill out at a late hour. Only last evening I was disturbed by three Irishmen playing skittles with three bottles of beer at a late hour. I had to call the police and have them removed. They had emerged from the pub totally insensible and had obviously consumed a great deal of alcohol in a very short time. That is what makes us different from other countries in Europe, from some of the other countries having the same standards of living to which I have referred.
If the only benefits from liberalising hours of drinking were those connected with tourism and employment which the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, has given, and if there were no appreciable change in the abuses, I am afraid that I

579
would not be able to support further flexibility of drinking hours. However, I refer now to the recent experiment in Scotland. Although no official statistics have been published, the voluminous packet of material I received from the Brewers' Society today included some revealing and very encouraging results from the Scottish experiment. The number of indictable offences connected with heavy drinking has decreased dramatically. There has been a dramatic decrease in the number of road accidents resulting from the heavy consumption of alcohol. When I speak of significant reductions, I mean reductions of the order of 30 per cent. to 40 per cent.
Cirrhosis of the liver is not so much a factor in our islands because the kind of drinking that takes place here probably does not lead to the kind of liver diseases which are more prevalent in France and some of the Latin countries where there is a high consumption of wine.
What is very alarming about this country is the high level of social disorder resulting from heavy drinking. I speak not only of the more obvious examples, such as the football violence which has led to the Bill now being considered in your Lordships' House. I took the trouble this afternoon to telephone the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I discovered from them that a very high proportion of cases of child battering take place in an environment of either heavy alcohol drinking or post-heavy alcohol drinking. I discovered also that the incidence of rape after heavy drinking has been on the increase. I learnt too that wife battering—which goes across all classes and is not exclusively the province of working people but occurs among the middle classes as well—is often associated with bouts of heavy drinking.
Without labouring the point, it seems to me that it would be well worth examining the Scottish experiment very closely. If we can reduce the incidence of such highly anti-social aspects of heavy drinking in this country, it would be worth while considering a liberalisation of the licensing laws. This would perhaps make those places where drinking takes place—the public houses, and so forth—less of a domain, as it were, for the males who, in many cases, are alienated males, and more like places for family and social activity. I have in mind something on the lines of the cafes in France and Italy.
To revert to the Andy Capp image, for too long we have seen the enormous concentration of drinking which takes place—and not just in the evenings. Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to be on a Tube train at Christmas time, will have seen the way in which people celebrate in the trains in a quite disgraceful manner some two or three weeks before Christmas. Anyone who has travelled on a ship will have seen (as I did when I worked for a shipping company and travelled on its ships) the way in which the crew were conditioned, at their first port of call, to go off on a bout of uncontrollable and alarming drinking, resulting in extraordinary behaviour which was often uncharacteristic of the people themselves.
This reminds me of my Irish neighbour, who says that in Ireland you do not get fighting among the Irish. This might be an Irish tale, but my Irish neighbour says that in this country he is now too old, at the age
580
of 43, to go into Irish pubs because you have to drink with your right hand and punch with your left, or the other way round. He assures me that this is because of the concentrated drinking which has to take place within the hours prescribed by our laws. In Ireland, apparently, one can drink in a much more relaxed way. The grocer will bring your groceries to you at the bar. No doubt there are other social aspects to this pattern of drinking, but it seems to be less violent and less anti-social.
It is that aspect which concerns me. If a relaxation of the licensing laws reduces the violence in our society and increases family activities, then I am all for it. If it benefits tourism and the civilised reception of foreign tourists in restaurants as well, that is an additional bonus. I shall certainly support any legislation to that effect.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, in following the noble Viscount I must say that I think he showed a singular innocence about what happens in public houses in Ireland. I noticed the look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill. I have seen some strange things indeed, even in Northern Ireland.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. However, I wish that he had been more candid in his Question. I think we might have had more noble Lords attending the debate if it had read:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider extending the licensing hours".
We might have had rather more noble Lords in the Chamber, perhaps including some of the Bishops.
I spent 40 years in Fleet Street. I have a peculiar knowledge of pubs and of drinking habits. I have enjoyed very many drinking parties. I have witnessed, in my long life in journalism, many alcoholic tragedies. That is the one side of me. On the other side, I come from a family of abstainers. At the age of 13, before I had reached the age of discretion, I was the Chief Templar administering the oath to other 13-year-olds and getting them to promise not to drink beer, wine, cider, spirits or any alcoholic or intoxicating drink. Then I counselled them, "Touch not the poisoned chalice", "Beware of the first drop", and "Wine is a mocker". I then invited them to sing the old tune, Shall we gather at the river? It all remains very vivid, and it was all very realistic in Ardwick as a boy. The drunkenness was horrible.
The licensing laws certainly strike foreigners as absurd—like many other things in English life, such as driving on the left, cricket, and perhaps even our ceremonial introductions in this Chamber. But our absurdities are cherished institutions, including our remarkable licensing laws. They are all due to World War I. The situation before then was that the public houses were entirely free. Men on their way to work at 7.30 in the morning would have a dram of spirits, perhaps sometimes with a cup of coffee, just as they do now in certain continental towns; and the pubs were open morning, noon and night. The drunkenness in Britain was horrible. However, drinking was to some extent curtailed by poverty and by long hours of work.
Then came the war and the highly-paid munitions workers with nothing on which to spend their money

581
except fur coats, pianos and drink. Lloyd George shortened the hours. He cut out the afternoon drinking and made a rule of no treating. I believe, as a result of long experience, that treating in public houses is one of the great promoters of alcoholism in this country. It is so deeply engrained in the British people that during the first world war, when they could not buy a round of drinks they would pass the money around to each person in the school so that they could buy themselves a drink. When each person's turn came to buy a round he simply passed the money around and they ordered a drink individually. That was done in order to preserve a custom. However, the consequence of Lloyd George's reform was that the consumption of drink was cut by one-half.
For many years after the war drink was no longer a problem, but I think there is an opinion now that it is coming back and beginning to be a problem, particularly a health problem. Figures were given on the radio recently, before I knew I was to take part in this debate, which showed the amount that it is costing the National Health Service to deal with alcohol-related illnesses. They are certainly increasing, and are increasing among women. We all know from our own observation that middle-class drinking is much heavier, partly as a result of expense account lunches and partly because of the cheapness of liquor. Like most other things, cigarettes are now twenty times dearer than before the war. If whisky was twenty times dearer it would cost over £12 a bottle, but it is somewhere between £7 and £8 a bottle.
Today, people have much more discretionary money. There was a time when one gave a party for ordinary suburban friends and provided half the amount of liquor that one would provide for an equivalent party of journalists. Now one's ordinary suburban friends drink like journalists drink, or as they used to drink. There are a number of reasons for this. One is the convenience of supply. The off-licences have multiplied. Brewers have off-licence chains under fancy names. The forecourts of petrol stations are being licensed. Small mixed businesses are applying successfully for off-licences, and there is this vast trade in cash-and-carry from the supermarkets. This expansion of convenience has a great effect on consumption, not only of drink but of everything. Cadbury's always maintained wide margins so that every little retailer would be a seller of chocolate, because Cadbury's knew that the company would sell more chocolate the more retail outlets it had. It is the same thing with drink: the more the convenience, the more people tend to drink.
This new pressure to open public houses for longer hours does not come from the consumers. There are not any candidates in by-elections going around saying, "Vote for me and keep the pubs open all day". They know that that would not win any votes, and that they would lose a lot of votes, particularly from women. This is the reason why the noble Lord and those who support him in this debate are knocking at a closed and bolted door. No Government of this country are going to bring about a big reform in the licensing trade—small reforms perhaps, and maybe something could be done about restaurant licences. I find it incredible that this should have any effect upon tourists. Have any American lawyers stayed away this
582
week because they said, "We will not be able to go into public houses between 3 o'clock and 5.30 p.m."? Do the French not come here for this reason? I should have thought that if we were really concerned to help the tourist trade then we might have a law to insist, as our friends do on the Continent, in Rome and in Paris, that all the bedrooms in hotels should be marked with their fixed legal price or that all the bars should have the price of drinks displayed. That would help. That would show the tourists that we were really concerned about their welfare.
As for the Scottish example, I do not think anything at all of it. The statistics are not in any way convincing. They are full of post hoc propter hoc fallacies. They do not take into account the fact that there has been a substantial increase in unemployment and a lot of poverty. I think it is just possible that one day Parliament may consent to some kind of relaxation of the licensing laws, but that would be on a free vote for both Houses. If it does that, I think it will be absolutely essential to have a long-term experiment in some highly varied districts so as to have some real sociological and statistical evidence that there had been no increase in illness or in social problems as a result of the new lenience.
I am sorry to be so strongly opposed to the noble Viscount, and I do not know what my noble friend will say, but traditionally throughout Europe our Labour movement has always had the idea of temperance in mind. In fact, the Scandinavian socialist parties began as temperance parties. This is a very old tradition. It used to be true of the Liberals at one time, and when you went to a Liberal Party conference you could find no one to drink with because they were all pink-faced non-conformists. All this has changed. The whole world has changed, but I still do not think, changed as the world is, that it is time to have drinking from morn until midnight.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask if he is suggesting that the Government which sanctioned the sweeping licensing reforms in Scotland a few years ago lost electoral support in consequence? I am very sure they did not.
Lord Ardwick: I do not know, my Lords. But if it was a Conservative Government, I do not think they seem to be doing very well in Scotland.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is with considerable temerity that I address your Lordships on this issue, because it is now a quarter of a century since I had political responsibility in any way touching on this, but the responsibility which I had then, and in particular relating to two matters, has convinced me—and thinking it over since has maintained my conviction—that the bulk of our licensing laws is hopelessly anachronistic and could well be swept away. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will know very well that the leading textbook on this branch of the law—I think it is the only text book, namely Paterson on Licensing Laws—runs to over 1,700 pages. Does anybody believe these days that that is the sort of legislation that we should put up with in modern society? That legislation belongs to quite a different age, an age where the legislature arrogated to itself the

583
right to determine what was good for others and to enforce it restrictively; and, with reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, had said, that particularly related to an arrogation of the right to determine how the lower classes should conduct themselves. No doubt there is a strong argument in favour of restricting the sale of intoxicating liquors to children, but so far as adults are concerned, what we have is really a hangover from the nannie state, which tells other people how they should conduct themselves and how they should live.
I shall not deal with the economic aspect of this matter, because that was dealt with admirably in the first two speeches with which your Lordships were favoured and I shall be followed by my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross, but I should like to deal briefly with the social and legal background to it. At common law there was no restriction at all on the sale of intoxicating liquors. The Mermaid, where so much was created, was not licensed premises. Sir John Falstaff drank an intolerable deal of sack compared with the bread that he consumed, but no one suggested that his example—abuse as it was, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to the aspect of abuse—was any excuse for introducing a general system of licensing. That did not come in until the 19th century. Earlier than that, justices could locally, in some cases by special Act, license fit and proper persons to conduct public houses, inns, taverns and victualling houses. It was not until the restricting moral climate of the 19th century that that practice was made general, and became increasingly restrictive, culminating in the Act of 1911.
I mention the two occasions in particular which brought me to your Lordships' House this evening. The first was when I first occupied the office that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate now occupies. I found there the most extraordinary state of affairs. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, referred to it, though not by name—the Carlisle scheme. That arose, as he indicated, out of conditions in the First World War. There was a special body of immigrants of a quite peculiar character engaged in two special areas of vital importance to munition production. The solution was not to extend licensing, because there was already licensing, but to have state-controlled public houses in those areas. One of them disappeared in the early 1920s, but when I went to the Home Office in the late 1950s, the other scheme—the Carlisle scheme—was still in operation.
Of course it was entirely irrelevant to conditions then. There was no special body of immigrants with nothing to spend their money on except drink, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, so picturesquely and strongly put it. There was no special problem of production in the Carlisle area. But could any alteration be made? The answer was, certainly not so far as an Under-Secretary of State was concerned. One was immediately led to know that that was—I trust that it is no longer—the lowest form of political life!
In fact the Carlisle scheme of state-controlled public houses went on until 1971 when it was abolished without anybody suffering the least anguish. In view of that your Lordships may well be on guard lest the noble Lord the Minister has been provided with a brief
584
in favour of inertia—the sort of inertia that led to the prolongation of the Carlisle scheme—and will watch carefully what he has to say.
The second episode was after I left the Home Office, but as a Law Officer I was asked to assist with the legislation which became the Licensing Act 1961. What I found then were very powerful pressure groups against any liberalisation, including some most unlikely coalitions—for example, the Blue Ribbon Brigade with the licensed victuallers. That Act was undoubtedly a liberalising measure, but the Minister in charge, the late Lord Runcorn, and myself each felt that we ought to have gone considerably further. We went as far as we could, supported by the mass of opinion in the House of Commons, but we were frustrated from going further by the virulence of the pressure groups, to which again the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, referred, although not in those opprobrious terms. If the lesson of the first encounter is to beware of departmental inertia, the lesson of the second is to beware of pressure groups!
I said that the present law was anachronistic. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has explained the background on which one can say that that is so, and that is the enormous growth of off-licensing, particularly the supermarkets and the very efficiently organised mass retailers. He went further and described other outlets. That means that anybody virtually can buy what he wants and consume it at home. So far, so good, but where he cannot consume it is in the social and neighbourly atmosphere of clubs and pubs. I hope that at the very least we shall hear from the Minister that there will be early legislation to bring the present law of England into line with that of Scotland, as to which it seems to me that there is an unanswerable case.
I should like to know that the Government were prepared to go further, but I am not sanguine and I shall be content if they will go just this little further and say that the whole problem of licensing, and particularly licensing hours, should be looked at again in a modern context. I end as I began by expressing gratitude to the noble Viscount who introduced the debate. It seems to me to be an important issue because it is an issue of personal freedom which should appeal to all your Lordships.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I also wish to thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery for introducing the debate. I can speak only from my experience in owning a pub in a small village and being a licensee for about two-and-a-half years, until in fact February this year. Like many others, we were a small business trying to provide a meeting place and a social club with service and certainly value for money. Like many others also, we tried to introduce new ideas to entertain our customers. I was prepared to work much longer hours than are now permitted. One has to work long hours to succeed, as it is a very competitive business.
I do not believe that longer drinking hours will result in more alcoholism. I saw quite a lot of the business in that time, and I consider that people were restricted in the amount that they could spend. That is obvious. A pub is a meeting place and a social club, especially in

585
a small village, and tradition counts in the country. If people had longer hours in which to drink, I do not think that they would drink more and I do not think that there would be any problem.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, tourists simply do not understand. We had a restaurant licence. The dining room was alongside the bar. In the restaurant they could drink until 3 p.m., but if they were having a meal in the bar, they could drink only until 2 p.m. That is nonsense. Landlords in pubs take on great responsibilities in running a good establishment. If bad behaviour on the part of our customers is reported by the police or the public, we risk losing our licence. It is the landlord who knows what the customer wants; the customer jolly well tells him. I think that landlords should be given every encouragement. Under the restrictions that are imposed at the moment, life is very difficult for them.
As your Lordships know, food is served in a great majority of pubs now. Food has certainly improved enormously. A little plug for myself: we won two awards in the two-and-a-half-years we were there and got into one well-known guide. Families visit pubs for the relaxed atmosphere. They like to take their children. Children find it difficult to behave well in places where they are perhaps told to be quiet. In pubs, this does not happen. All right, one must have a children's room that must not be part of the bar. I agree with that. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that it is quite wrong that children should be next to those who are drinking in a public or lounge bar. The customers themselves do not necessarily enjoy this. Children also like to go to pubs which, like ours, have play areas.
I feel very strongly about this matter of the flexible hours and I wish to urge the Government to move on it soon. We have waited a very long time. I sincerely believe that it is not a licence for more drinking but an encouragement to entrepreneurs to attract business. Truly, they can do this only under more relaxed regulations: the present rules in this year of 1985, I feel are far too restrictive. With the commitment of Her Majesty's Government that they will help small businesses, surely legislation should be brought forward to help relieve what I consider to be grossly unfair restrictions on the permitted hours under which we operate at the moment.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she say what hours she would like the village pub to be open? When should it open and when should it close?
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. While I can speak only from a personal point of view, I think that the hours might not necessarily be longer but that they should be allowed at the discretion of the licensee. I think it is up to the landlord. He knows his business. There may be farm workers who want to visit pubs. In the winter, they finish work at 4 o'clock. They might want a beer on their way home and now they cannot have it. I think it should be more flexible. I do not think one should open at 10 o'clock in the morning, or even 11 o'clock. One might want to open at 12. It might not necessarily be longer but I think it should be flexible at the discretion of the licensee.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, it is a great delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, whose teachings from long practical experience seem to me to be more representative than the somewhat alarming memories of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, of life among his fellow journalists. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for raising the Question. I should also like to follow him in paying tribute to my late noble friend Lord Spens, who, as the tireless chairman of our non-party repeal group, raised the last debate we had—
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, as the noble Lord has referred to me, perhaps I may tell him that I have had a good deal of personal experience of the licensed trade and I am very much concerned about the licensed victualler and his need for a couple of hours off in the middle of the day.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, we shall pick up that point a little later. The tribute was to Lord Spens who raised the last debate we had on this issue, which was on 9th May 1983. I can only say, along with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, that I hope that we shall have a more constructive and fruitful response from the Government than on the last occasion.
The first national legislation on the sale of alcoholic drinks can be traced back to a Tudor statute of 1495 to restrict gaming in alehouses as a diversion from the more serious business of archery. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery's distinguished father would have approved of that order of priorities! The modern power of the justice of the peace to license premises and to choose licensees dates from as recently as 1552. If we look at the intervening four-and-a-half centuries, we find that the law has oscillated between periods of laxity—as after the Restoration and again following the Napoleonic wars—and periods of severity, as after the Proclamation against Vice and Immorality in 1787 and again over the past 70 years.
Today, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, the law is of the utmost complexity, with separate licences for sales on or off the premises and intricate, arbitrary discrimination between different forms of drink and whether they are sold in residential premises, restaurants or clubs. I should like to say from the Cross-Benches that, even as a classical liberal of what I might call the highest proof, I would accept that licences to sell alcoholic refreshment to adults should be confined to what the law calls "fit and proper" persons who conduct their business in conformity with what the Erroll Report called,
"public order, safety, health or amenity".
What I cannot accept is that there need be any control over the hours at which such well-conducted business is carried on between willing buyers and willing sellers. The first restriction on hours came, back in 1619. However, it was the first world war which provided the pretext for the most unprecedented austerity over the whole of that period. Under emergency regulations in 1915 the Central Control Board restricted opening to two-and-a-half hours at lunch and three hours in the evening. This draconian regime was eased in 1921, when opening was extended

587
from a total of five-and-a-half hours to eight-and-a-half hours, roughly between 11 in the morning and 10 in the evening, with a compulsory afternoon break. As we have heard, there was a further modification in 1961 when an additional hour's opening was added in the evening.
Thus the restrictions, justified 500 years ago by the call to archery, and tightened 70 years ago in the battle against the Kaiser, have lingered on, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, like a legal hangover from the legislative excesses of war.
I was struck by a surprisingly sober tract recently produced by the Campaign for Real Ale. It was called Licence for Change, and it shows to my satisfaction that England and Wales are among the most severely restricted countries outside the Moslem world. Most of civilised Europe, the United States of America and Japan permit all day opening and sale of alcohol. Sweden, as might be expected of a socialist paradise, is the most regimented. Its eight million population is served by only 316 state shops, apparently dispensing state alcohol from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., although the evidence that the Swedes, after all, are human is suggested by the extent of illicit brewing and distilling.
Our native Cromwellian controllers should ponder that even such severe restriction in Sweden has not prevented deaths from cirrhosis of the liver in that country increasing fourfold in the last 20 years and incidents of alcoholism increasing eightfold. This black record is rivalled only by the legendary tales of Australia, where there was a one-hour evening drinking session at 6 o'clock in many states and that did not prevent—indeed it rather provoked —widespread drunkenness, which has declined since the opening time was relaxed to between 10 in the morning and 10 in the evening.
Although the 1972 Erroll Report brought no action in England and Wales, the 1973 Clayson Report brought liberalisation to Scotland. As we have heard, since 1976 the licensing authorities have been given wide discretion in permitting late night opening to midnight and regular afternoon extensions. In contrast to the restrictive Swedes, the Scottish record shows a quite remarkable reduction over the last seven or eight years in every index of alcohol abuse. Indeed, the local police have strongly endorsed liberalisation as having brought a change in habits with civilised drinking and improved amenities in place of the old spit and sawdust drinking dens that some of us can remember. If freedom can have this effect on the Scots, I ask what miracles it might produce among the already civilised English.
Alas, the continuation of these antique restrictions on opening has recently been marked by the declining fortunes of many of our traditional pubs. They have to contend not only with increasing wine drinking and a higher excise on beer but also with increased competition from multiplying off-licences, registered clubs and licensed restaurants. Yet there lies ahead enormous scope for improved business, not least in serving more appetising food and catering, as we have heard, for growing tourism, holiday and leisure trade. Under freedom, the choice of opening hours would vary with locality and time of year. Each pub, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, indicated, could shape
588
its pattern of opening to suit the convenience of its customers, who would no longer have to go abroad to have a drink when it suited them.
The general political and philosophical case for restoring freedom and choice is powerfully reinforced by the economic gains that we may reap from adaptation, expansion and growing employment in one of Britain's major service industries. We have then to turn to the preoccupation of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and his anxieties about the social effects of freedom on the evils of drunkenness and alcoholism. In the time available, I would simply join others in asserting that for all the emotional rhetoric, these real ills have no logical link whatever with relaxed drinking in the controlled environment of a British public house or a licensed restaurant. Like others, I have shared the anguish of knowing a good many young people, and some not so young, who are caught up in alcoholic excess. I have reviewed the cases in my mind and find that not one of them depended on a pub either as a source of supply or for the opportunity of indulgence. My personal experience is confirmed by the empirical evidence from Scotland, and further afield from Sweden and Australia, which shows that restriction may intensify excessive drinking while liberalisation of the law encourages more civilised behaviour in the supervised social setting of an attractive public house.
I would, in conclusion, urge the growing number of fellow reformers not to settle for minor modifications of the oppressive English law on licensing hours, as we have heard happened in 1961. Let us set our sights, as with the Shops Acts, on the real prize of repeal rather than reform. We shall in any event have to battle against a mountain of prejudice, misplaced fear and obfuscation. Let us not end up by producing a miserable mouse.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in typical kindliness, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said that although my name is not on the list, he does not object to my making one parliamentary point to my noble friend the Minister. My noble friend Lord Montgomery referred to the Private Member's Bills that I have been able to get through both Houses over recent years. He said very properly that these dealt with the tip of the iceberg and that they were only tiny and insignificant in their scope. The reason for that is that if as a Back-Bencher one intends to use the Private Member's procedure, any proposal has to be modest. Any measure has to be of tiny proportions if it is to get through. If, however, it is intended that we face up to the points that have come out in this short debate, it will be necessary to have Government support.
I should like to make an appeal to my noble friend and ask him to pay a great deal of attention to the formidable contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a former Home Office Minister who also has experience as one of our leading lawyers and as a former Law Officer of the Crown. The noble and learned Lord did not hesitate to show that the experience that he had gathered while at the Home Office and as a Law Officer made him feel that it was now time to examine the ramshackle set-up that goes under the heading of our present licensing laws.

589
I was interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, about candidates and the question of attracting votes in terms of any extension of the licensing laws. I have fought 18 elections—a pretty high figure, I should have thought, for any Member of either House. I should like to inform the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, that if I—or any candidate—had gone to the polls saying that I would close public houses, I would have been in a darned sight more difficult position to get elected.
When a similar debate took place in another place late last year my noble friend's honourable friend, who was replying to the debate, gave some indication that the Government were perhaps thinking along the lines of sensible reform to meet the present day and age. In his speech he suggested that those taking part in the debate should bring out any little quirks, as I endeavoured to do in my Private Member's Bills. Beyond that, however, he gave me the impression, on reading his speech, that he was perhaps saying something along those lines. I should like to tell my noble friend that the three little quirks with which I was dealing were only three out of 300, 400 or 500 similar quirks. If we have to wait for Private Member's Bills to straighten out those quirks, it will never be done.
I believe that following the Erroll Report and the experience of Scotland, and certainly following the testimony of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I should like to feel that the Government will give some indication that this matter will figure on their list, if not in the next Session—I understand that they have a shops Bill in the next Session which I have no doubt will take up much parliamentary time—then in the final Session, if that is what it will be; I mean the Session following the next one. I hope that this will figure on the grounds on which it deserves to figure.
The existing position hinders the development of many small businesses. There is a need for action to meet the demands of tourism. The time has come for any risk, if there is a risk, to be taken by the Government and for them to give the leadership that is necessary. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for allowing me to butt in when my name was not on the list.
8.37 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I owe your Lordship's House two apologies: first, for not having put down my name to speak and, secondly, for not having heard all the speeches, though I have listened to a number of them. I should not take more than three minutes over what I wish to say. Yes, our present licensing laws, by any standards, are anachronistic. But is there a real advantage in altering them? I do not believe that they constitute any real inroad into the freedom of anyone. What one has to consider when altering anything are the side effects. There has already been reference to the possibility of greater alcoholism, the possibility that the commercial chap will spend longer in the pub, will leave at 4 o'clock and will be even more drunk on the road. That is certainly something we can think about. I do not wish, however, to argue that point tonight.
590
I wish to put only one argument—that the English pub is something quite exceptional and something that people coming from abroad admire. Our publican works almost harder than anyone else. There is an added advantage. Wherever they go, travellers and people coming from abroad know when the pubs are open. Our climate is not the same as it is abroad. The garden is appropriate for only a very limited time in a good summer. What are you really achieving? Are you simply saying that the laws are anachronistic? That is the burden, I believe, of many of the speeches made by noble Lords tonight.
But that is not the point. Will we gain any real advantage by altering the laws? My opinion, on the whole, is that we shall not. I believe that we would be destroying, or potentially destroying, something that is uniquely English for something that is no better. That is the only matter which I would ask your Lordships to consider. I do not have a view violently one way or the other.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene at this time without having put my name on the list of speakers, and I apologise for not doing so. However, if anything inspired me to say a few words, in spite of the scowling—I beg your pardon, the look which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave me as I presumed to stand up—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord mistakes a look of deep affection for something quite different. I do not know what he would think if I really did disapprove of him.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for explaining what the passionate look on his face really meant when I rose to my feet. There is one other reason I want to speak tonight. There is not a single Liberal down to speak on the list, and I cannot see a Liberal in the House at the moment, except the very distinguished Deputy Speaker, Viscount Simon, who I am sure must be neutral on this occasion. Furthermore, no one has spoken about Wales. Wales has a history in relation to licensing laws, especially on Sundays. Therefore, I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, has spoken about the history.
However, what has encouraged me to speak is that for the first time in this House I can endorse every word spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar of Nicholls. To me, that is a great event.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I must intervene. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is himself influenced by the drink about which we are talking, but the noble Lord's name is not "Lord Harmar of Nicholls".
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am so sorry; I put in a preposition too many. It is of course merely "Lord Harmar-Nicholls".
I should have been delighted to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, with all her expertise in this matter. However, there is a very significant matter that I should like to raise. I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, but from my experience on the bench elsewhere, drunkenness is often not dependent upon

591
whether the pub is open at all. It is dependent upon other social reasons. Therefore, I support the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, in suggesting that there should be a drastic change in our licensing laws.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I must apologise to all noble Lords for not having put my name down on the list of speakers. I was not sure what time this debate would come on this evening, and so perhaps noble Lords will forgive me for intervening for what will be much less than five minutes. One of my late husband's favourite quotations was, "Set the people free". It is that phrase around which I want to build a few words tonight.
Other noble Lords have said that our laws are archaic, and in this day and age I would entirely agree. We must have more flexibility in our approach to life and the way we live our lives. Our young people are much more flexible than we were brought up to be. I speak as an old-age pensioner and therefore perhaps my memory is longer than that of some other noble Lords in this House. However, we must be more flexible; we must be more relaxed in how we approach the way we live in our country.
Noble Lords have asked whether, if the pubs are allowed to stay open as and when it is necessary or helpful, that will lead to more drinking. In my opinion we are a conservative nation. The women do not like drunken husbands; we do not like drunken men. The laws of our country do not like people who have taken on board more drink than they can cope with. A person is very quickly picked up in the street if he is drunk; a person is very quickly picked up in the street if he is drunk riding a bicycle; a person is very quickly picked up if he is drunk driving a car. You are certainly not welcome if you come home drunk from the pub.
I would submit that, if the licensing laws are relaxed, for a very short time there will be a certain amount of extra drinking by some people in this country. But I would also submit that that will not last for very long. In supporting what my noble friend Lady Sharples has said, I would say that to a lonely person, to someone who wants someone else to talk to, a pub is very often the only place to which he can go. It is not always something that one wants to do between, for instance, seven o'clock and eleven o'clock at night. A person might be very lonely and very worried at three or four o'clock in the afternoon. For that reason alone I think that licensing laws should be derestricted—if that is the word I am looking for.
We all know that public houses are hard work, but they offer companionship and goodwill to many people who need it. That is all I have to say. I should like to conclude with another quotation that my late husband liked so much: "Trust the people".
8.47 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, did nothing else this evening but give us some amazing pictures of our colleagues who have participated in this debate, he would have been worthy of our appreciation. We learnt from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that he appears to have an absolute obsession to be near the Irish, whether in a public house or his neighbouring residence. We
592
listened to my noble friend Lord Ardwick and found, as one would have expected, that he started off with a most innocent and praiseworthy youth, and we were a little disappointed to hear that there would seem to have been a downward slope as he went through that extraordinary place called Fleet Street. When we listened to the charming Baroness, Lady Sharples, I think we would all have guessed that she had received many awards during her lifetime, which has been dedicated to public service; but had I been asked to guess whether the awards were for serving meals in a country pub, I confess that I would have been unable to do so. However, it is extremely fine to know that, among her many other awards, that was one.
When I saw the four colleagues who forced their way aggressively through the gap I immediately thought of the very gallant and distinguished father of the mover of this Motion who would have thought their tactics absolutely in order. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked me whether I could think of the well-known textbook on licensing law which goes to over 1,000 pages. I must tell the noble and learned Lord that I am a little chary about the writing of textbooks and their authors ever since I was told that the great authority on wills, Theobald, died intestate.
Perhaps I may now turn to the subject under discussion. Let me say at once what I think is the view of all noble Lords. We do not have restrictive laws for the sake of having restricted laws. I would say without any doubt at all that my party believes in freedom unless, for one reason or another, in the nation's interest and in the people's interest there has to be a measure of control.
Therefore, one looks at this subject of licensing laws not in a vacuum. One has to look at the question of what really is the social picture. When looking at the social picture, I ought to have mentioned, when I was mentioning other names, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. It was such a delight to hear somebody who is so well known to us as an economist turn tonight into an historian, and a master, so it would appear, of social expertise.
However, can we look at this situation in a vacuum and without looking at the whole effect of the licensing laws, and the cause of the licensing law, in regard to our people? This is not the only occasion on which Parliament has looked at this subject, and done so quite recently. All of us recognise that there are absurdities, anomalies, and anachronisms, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. There are all those things. There are examples which were not quoted to your Lordships.
I wonder how many of us know that you cannot serve somebody who is drunk without committing an offence in a public house, but you may do so in a supermarket. Do your Lordships know that it is an offence for a minor to serve anybody with intoxicating drink in a public house, but that it is not an offence for a minor to serve intoxicating drink in a supermarket?
Of course, there are all these anomalies, and of course the Government—any Government of whatever complexion—ought to look and see that our licensing laws are brought into the age of 1985. But we have to look a little deeper than that before we decide on the extent of liberalisation or reform.

593
There was a debate in another place in November 1984—not a long time ago—on a Motion of the honourable Member for Kingswood:
"That this House believes that the liquor licensing law in England and Wales should be revised".
If your Lordships look at Hansard to see the effect of the various contributions made in that debate you will find, as I did, that it was brought out that there is strong evidence that between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. of those appearing before magistrates in inner-city areas had been drinking before they had committed their offences; that 50 per cent. of those committing homicide did so under the influence of drink, and that 50 per cent. of the victims of homicide were also the victims of drink.
There is not the slightest doubt—the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to this: I believe he said that he had actually taken the trouble to consult the NSPCC—that anybody going into our criminal courts and hearing those dreadful tales of the battering of children would hear that in so many of them the parent, or the step-parent, has been involved in drinking bouts before any of this shocking cruelty occurred.
Wife bashing has been mentioned. If we look back in our own recollection, as we can do, of friends we have known, people we have admired, people whose autobiographies we have read, lawyers who started off with so much promise, actors who were before the world's stage in a pre-eminent position, we have sometimes learned—I am not in any way trying to preach a temperance sermon—that their family lives were ruined by drink. That does not mean—and I am not trying to put it to your Lordships—that that is an excuse for outdated, absurd licensing laws. All I say is that we ought to know a great deal more about where those people got their drink, and whether they would have been subject to drink in the same way if our licensing laws were altered in some respects.
Only last week this House was engaged in considering the provisions of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Bill. We knew that we were not solving the problem of violence at football matches. But we decided that a Second Reading should be given, and a Committee stage should be passsed, of a Bill which banned alcohol, except in certain limited measures, in regard to our games of football. We did it against a tragic national background. If we did that, and did it as an emergency measure, is it not obvious that the sale of alcohol in certain circumstances must be watched with the greatest of care?
On 5th July another place considered the Licensing (Amendment) Bill, which started in the Lords, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred, and indeed of which he was the rather proud parent. He deserves to be proud for the way in which he piloted that measure through your Lordships' House. At that very Commons sitting, at column 685, Mr. David Mellor, the Minister at the Home Office, said:
"As to the more general reform of the law—I refer here to the much-debated issue of flexible licensing hours—hon. Members will be aware that it is currently under review"—
words that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, prayed would not be used of themselves by the Minister on this occasion without any further
594
enlightenment. He went on:
"My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that, before reaching a decision, he will wish to consider carefully the reports of the surveys conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into the effects of the extension of permitted hours brought about in Scotland by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, together with all relevant data on the indicators of alcohol abuse. The full report, which will include the results of a survey of public house licensees about their attitude to licensing legislation, will be published later in the year".
I am sure that that promise by the Minister will be kept. Is it not sensible that we wait hopefully for all that information and report, and then decide to ask the Government to do what is necessary to bring up to date our licensing laws in the light of real information, which will then be before us?
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question? The noble Lord mentioned in the earlier part of his interesting remarks that he recognised that there were certain anomalies. Would the noble Lord not agree that the anomaly of the licensing situation in the restaurant trade, particularly, is rather exceptional, and that this might perhaps fit into the pattern to which he referred?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I find it difficult to disagree that some of the laws appertaining to restaurants are illogical or are not really fit for 1985, but I must condition what I say by an ignorance, until I see reports, of the effect that any alteration would have upon employees in the restaurant trade and of the effect that it might have upon places which are described as restaurants but which, in certain circumstances, could become places where drinks could be obtained at any time that anybody wanted to go into such a place and say, "Please, can you give me a bag of chips? That's my meal—but I am really here for drink." All those things have to be considered. That is why I ended my speech as I did.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally sits down, I wonder whether he can confirm that it was under the Government of his right honourable friend Mr. Harold Wilson, as he then was, that Scottish Licensing laws were so drastically liberalised, with such beneficial effects upon alcohol-related crimes.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in exactly the same way I could quote the fact that there was legislation passed in Scotland banning all liquor from football grounds—which legislation we borrowed last week. All I am saying is this. I understand that the Secretary of State for the Home Department is trying to get really reliable statistical information as to the effect that that Act has had upon drinking and crime in Scotland. In our debate today we have surmised the result. Let us know what it really is.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as has been said, it is rather more than two years since it fell to me to reply to the last debate that we had on the prospects for reform of the licensing law. On that occasion it was the late Lord Spens, who we much miss and in respect of whom I share the feelings of my noble friend and

595
others, who asked a Question about flexible opening hours for public houses in England and Wales. Today it is again my pleasant task to reply, but first I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein for providing us with another opportunity to debate the subject. His Question has generated worthwhile and lively debate, and the expression of some powerfully held convictions and some equally powerfully expressed anecdotes, and we are indebted to him for that.
My noble friend has disclosed his interest in the licensing laws as president of the Restauranteurs Association of Great Britain. He has drawn attention, in particular, to the restrictions on the permitted opening hours of licensed premises in England and Wales—restrictions which affect public houses, hotels and wine bars as well as restaurants—and to the problems they create for licensees, who have to explain to overseas tourists why they cannot enjoy a glass of wine or a glass of beer at 3 o'clock or 3.30 in the afternoon. We have heard, too, of apparent inconsistencies in the law. These arguments, and others, have been used to suggest that a general reform of the licensing law is now necessary, if not overdue. Against that, other noble Lords, notably Lord Ardwick and Lord Mishcon, have sounded notes of caution on the grounds that we must have regard to the serious problems arising from the misuse of alcohol, and that any reform of the law which would have the effect of increasing its availability must proceed in the full knowledge of the likely consequences.
The various arguments for and against radical reform of the law have been rehearsed on many previous occasions. The report of the departmental committee on liquor licensing, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, which was presented to Parliament in 1972, recommended fundamental changes in the law. If all its recommendations had been implemented, we would have today a very different licensing system and one which gave licensees and their customers a greater say in when and where drinks should be available. But many of the committee's proposals proved controversial, particularly when viewed against the growing concern about alcohol-related problems. Those problems are no less serious now. Indeed, there have been increasing demands on health and social services over the years as a direct result of alcohol misuse. I say that despite the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about per capita consumption and cirrhosis, which to some extent I found quite encouraging.
Successive Governments have reacted cautiously to demands for relaxation of these laws, for fear of adding to the substantial social and economic costs of misuse, which are estimated at over £1,500 million a year—a staggering figure. The Expenditure Committee on Preventive Medicine in another place and the Advisory Committee on Alcoholism both stressed in 1977 that any relaxation of the licensing laws should be approached with caution. So did the 1979 report of a special committee of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which urged that there should be no further relaxation of the broad range of licensing provisions.
596
Dampening to my noble friends' enthusiasm though it might sound, I thought it important to say something about the obstacles in the path of licensing law reform, some of which were well put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I do not wish to give the impression, however, that the Government are irrevocably opposed to reform in the future. It would be misleading to suggest that. We are, however, concerned about the effects of increased consumption and we must therefore be satisfied that any changes in the law, modest or radical, will not have undesirable consequences.
We have heard references to the Scottish licensing system, to the extended opening hours it has brought about, and to its benefits in terms of sensible drinking. Perhaps I ought to declare my interest as one who lives in Scotland and is therefore in a position to benefit; but the fundamental difference in the licensing systems north and south of the Border lies not so much in the prescribed permitted opening hours for licensed premises, for those are broadly the same, as in the facility in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 whereby licensees can apply for extensions, on a regular basis, to those hours.
We have heard that these substantial changes in the law in Scotland have been the subject of surveys commissioned by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The preliminary results of one survey on drinking and attitudes to licensing in Scotland were published in May. Those results showed that in the period 1976 to 1984 the average weekly amount of alcohol consumed rose by some 13 per cent. The increase was almost entirely contributed by women, with the increase most marked among women aged between 26 and 45. The OPCS concluded that since consumption by men did not rise in the eight-year period, the increase in women's drinking is unlikely to be a direct consequence of the changes in the licensing laws. Instead, it is more probable that it results from a change in Scotland to a more relaxed attitude towards drinking in general, and in particular to women's drinking.
Additionally and perhaps not surprisingly, 73 per cent. of those questioned agreed that the present licensing laws are an improvement. 79 per cent. agreed that because public houses were open longer, people did not rush their drinks as they used to (and that was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson). But a significant 40 per cent. felt that the longer licensing hours encourage people to drink more.
The information which has been published so far is no more than the preliminary findings of one survey. Those results are being analysed more extensively and will be published, together with other material from the general population survey and the results of a small survey of public house licensees, in the main survey report later this year, as my noble friend Lord Montgomery said. It is important that we consider that full report in detail, together with all available data relating to alcohol-related harm, before considering whether similar relaxations in the law should be introduced in England and Wales. This must be the sensible way to proceed, but I assure your Lordships

597
that we will take account of all relevant information before coming to a conclusion.
The area of the licensing law in England and Wales which attracts the most demand for change is that of permitted opening hours, and that theme has been stressed tonight. Certainly most sectors of the drinks industry and the licensed trade seem to favour the introduction of more flexibility. But that, my Lords, is probably the extent of the agreement. It is when one comes to consider how the law might be amended that one finds that there are fundamental differences of view among the various interested parties. My noble friend's association seeks an amendment to the law which would enable restaurants to serve alcohol with meals at all times, 24 hours of the day. The British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association shares this view. Other members of the licensed trade seek less radical reforms. Some favour a system similar to that recommended in 1972 by the Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, which would have allowed individual licensees to determine their own opening hours within the period 10 a.m. to midnight. Again, others believe that the maximum number of opening hours should remain at 9½ hours a day but that licensees should be free to choose their hours up to that limit. There are other permutations; and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, pointed out the dangers of concentrated drinking hours, as did the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
These examples show the range of views expressed by members of the licensed trade. But theirs are not the only views to be taken into account. The tourist boards favour flexible opening hours and point to the criticism by overseas visitors of our present system. The police and the magistrates can be expected to hold their own strong views on any proposal which would have the effect of increasing the availability of alcohol. And of course members of the public will be affected by any change. Indeed, the Home Office has received a number of letters from individual members of the public who are concerned over any suggestion that public houses should be allowed to remain open until midnight. Their fear is that the noise and nuisance caused by the departure of customers would become intolerable if the closing time was extended by another hour. In our consideration of the licensing laws we must have full regard for the views expressed by those directly affected, particularly by those living in the vicinity of licensed premises.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why he thinks that the law of nuisance is not sufficient to deal with that problem?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not as familiar as perhaps I ought to be with where one can draw the line with the law of nuisance; but I think that the relevance of licensing laws to the general problem of nuisance caused by people who frequent pubs, and might do so late at night, really does bear thinking about. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred particularly to the question of skittles with bottles being played late at night. I think that what I have just said indicates that there are many others who might be affected by the sort of problem to which this might lead.
598
But my noble friend's Question goes wider than licensing hours: it asks when the Government will consider some more general reform of the licensing laws. I have to say that we are not contemplating a review of the entire licensing system. The present arrangements have evolved over a long period of time and although they may be imperfect in some respects, and seem unnecessarily complex, they do nevertheless fulfill a necessary function. Few would argue for the abolition of the requirement to hold a justices' licence for the sale of alcohol or indeed for the removal of many of the licensing requirements which exist for the protection of the public and the maintenance of law and order.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly raised the question of alcohol and crime. We have heard disturbing figures on alcohol and crime. There is no doubt that there may be a connection between the two. Perhaps I might also say that most of those who drink do not, of course, commit offences. That is an important point to get across. But we must not underestimate or ignore the real problems which the minority can cause in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, mentioned petrol stations. Yes, concern has been expressed recently about the grant of off-licences to petrol stations. What I can tell the noble Lord is that the Government have the matter under review.
I am glad that my noble friend Lady Sharples, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised the question of children in public houses. As my noble friend Lady Sharples said, the basis of the prohibition on entry to bars of young people under 14 is to protect children from too early an introduction to the risks of alcohol, and from what might be considered an unacceptable environment. Similar restrictions exist in many other countries. While we recognise that many responsible parents would like their children to accompany them into pubs, it would not be easy to relax the restrictions on the entry of children in these circumstances without also putting at risk those other children who might then be permitted entry to bars without the benefit of a responsible adult.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made a most robust speech describing what he felt was the anachronistic—"archaic" was the word used by my noble friend Lady Macleod—posture of our drinking laws. He referred to the Carlisle scheme. I believe that it was called the Carlisle state management scheme. But the noble and learned Lord was quite right that that scheme no longer exists. I think I am right in saying that the scheme was wound up in the seventies—I do not have the precise date. But there are therefore no longer any additional controls on licensed premises in the Carlisle district.
The noble Lord hopes that I am not motivated by a brief which is based on inertia. He at least balanced that by saying that he hoped I would not be bullied by the pressure groups. I shall try to fall into neither difficulty. But I do not want to leave the impression that the Government refuse to contemplate any amendment to the licensing legislation. That is not the case. I shall have to ask my noble friend Lady Macleod in this case to trust the Government.

599
I have explained the Government's view on relaxations in the permitted opening hours. That door has not been closed. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls can point to his attempts, so far very successful, to amend sections of the 1964 Licensing Act relating to late night entertainments on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Saturday. I am sure that my noble friend will acknowledge, as my noble friend Lord Montgomery said, that his Bill is a modest measure—the tip of an iceberg as it was referred to earlier—and it may not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, would like. But it nevertheless shows that the Government are not opposed to amendments to the law when these are shown to be desirable. This I think again takes on board the theme of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. Nor are we afraid to impose new controls on the availability of alcohol when the need arises.
I need not add to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said just now in relation to alcohol and sporting events. I realise that my reply to the Question of my noble friend will not have been as positive or as encouraging as he and others would like. I recognise, and have every sympathy with, his arguments in support of licensing law reform, and indeed those of others who have spoken in support of him. But I am sure he will appreciate the force of the opposing views, equally serious and sincerely held as they are. All deserve to be heard. I am therefore grateful to him for providing the opportunity to debate the matter again, and the views which have been expressed will be taken into account as consideration of this develops further.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he be a little more specific about the date for the publication of the full report on the Scottish experiment? He said "later in the year". I wonder whether he can explain precisely what that means.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is difficult to be much more precise, but I should hope that it will be some time in the autumn. But, equally, I should hope that my noble friend will not tie me to that date.

Birmingham City Council Bill
British Railways Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Alexandra Park and Palace Bill
C-Poultry Company Limited Bill
Plymouth Marine Events Base Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past nine o'clock.

  TREASURY CONSENT FORMULA: LEGISLATION
  TREASURY CONSENT FORMULA: LEGISLATION
  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
  NEW FOREST: HUNTING PROTESTS
  NEW FOREST: HUNTING PROTESTS
  CAROLINE GOURLAY TRUST
  CAROLINE GOURLAY TRUST
  NORTH PENNINES LOCAL INQUIRY
  NORTH PENNINES LOCAL INQUIRY