Sitting of 17 July 1985

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

  BERKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Football Grounds (Safety)
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Football Association, and chief fire officers in Scotland, on the safety of football grounds in both senior and junior leagues; and what steps are being taken before the new football season commences in August.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I met representatives of the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Football League, the British Transport Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) on 1 July to review crowd control measures. Scottish fire brigades have at my request recently visited football grounds and other stadiums in their areas. Managements are being advised of any measures needed to improve fire safety in their grounds. The committee of inquiry into crowd safety and control at sports grounds will provide interim advice about crowd safety before the opening of the new season.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. I welcome the steps that the Scottish Office has taken towards improving crowd control and safety at football grounds. Can he say when the Popplewell report will be published? Can he also say whether there is the possibility of financial support being provided by the Football Trust to clubs which are not eligible for assistance from that source because they are not included on the football pools list? The smaller clubs are experiencing difficulty over their stands because of the ecommendations of the fire officers.
    Mr. Stewart: The interim report of the committee under Mr. Justic Popplewell's chairmanship has just been
    298
    received by the Government, and we hope to publish it before the House rises for the summer recess. The non-league grounds to which my hon. Friend referred, such as Peterhead in his constituency, are covered by the fire masters' review. I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that the primary responsibility for the safety of individual facilities must lie with the operators of those grounds. However, the position of non-league clubs has been drawn to the attention of the Football Trust by the Scottish Sports Council.
    Sir Hector Monro: Scotland can rightly take a great deal of credit for the steps that it has taken to improve its football grounds and to reduce alcohol abuse. However, does my hon. Friend accept that there are absolutely no grounds for complacency? Car he say what steps are being taken this summer, before the start of the football season next month, to improve grounds in the interests of sports safety?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend I do not believe that there is any complacency whatsoever in Scotland. There was no complacency at the meeting that I held on 1 July. I can assure my hon. Friend that the review of safety by the Football Grounds Improvement Trust includes all league grounds in Scotland; and safety is, of course, being considered by Mr. Justice Popplewell's committee.
    Mr. Ewing: I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State on winning the argument against Home Office Ministers in relation to clause 1 versus clause 10 of the Bill which is at present before another place. It would have been preposterous if the staff of British Rail had been held responsible for alcohol being carried on trains going to football matches. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that during his recent visit Mr. Justice Popplewell praised highly the safety standards at Scottish football grounds? May I also ask him not to single out football? The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will appreciate that attendances at many rugby matches in Scotland are far higher than attendances at football matches. It is important to consider safety at all sports grounds.
    Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of his request to the fire brigades and the police, there is a distinct possibility of one senior Scottish club—I shall not name it—not being able to start the new season?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman raised the first part of his question on Second Reading of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Bill. Home Office Ministers have reached agreement with us on appropriate changes to clause 1.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the problem is not limited to football. That is why the Scottish fire brigades were asked to visit other stadiums.
    On the hon. Gentleman's final point, following the surveys by the fire masters, concern has been expressed about four Scottish league grounds. At one club the matter has been rectified, and at another measures are in hand. At two other clubs there could be restrictions on numbers in the new season.

    Employment Policy
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, when he next meets the Scottish Trades Union

    299
    Congress he will discuss the implications for Government policy on employment in Scotland of the recent miners' strike.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I am always willing to discuss with the STUC the implications for Government policy of important events. The most damaging effects of the recent miners' strike have been on employment in the industry itself.
    Mr. Brown: As Ian MacGregor represents man's inhumanity to man—not forgetting wives and bairns—will the Secretary of State intervene to ensure that victimised miners are returned to work? Or is the highly placed, highly salaried chairman of the NCB doing the dirty work for the Government? When I met Mr. MacGregor at Edinburgh airport on Thursday, he was not interested in fair play. Indeed, when I mentioned conciliation, he thought that that was a brand of rye whisky. Will the Secretary of State intervene and do something to resolve this almighty problem, which affects a large section of the community in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: Dismissed miners who have complaints can go to industrial tribunals. They have a perfectly good course under the normal law.
    As for the other effects of the strike, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. MacGregor. The severe responsibility for the effects of the strike lies firmly on the NUM, which has not only done lasting damage to the Scottish coal industry, but has destroyed a large number of jobs.
    Mrs. McCurley: When my right hon. Friend meets the STUC, will he emphasise to the congress that the steel industry in Scotland would be in a much safer position and that the BSC would be in profit if it had not been for the destructive effects of the coal strike? The example which the STUC set in wanting the steelworkers to come out was highly destructive for other jobs.
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the splendid efforts of the steelworkers in Scotland were made considerably more difficult by the efforts of the NUM, which tried and failed to close Ravenscraig.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for brief supplementary questions.
    Mr. Strang: Why is the NCB pursuing its policy of victimisation with such vengeance, particularly in Scotland? Surely the Secretary of State must recognise that innocent men and their families are being sacrificed and that this is a human rights issue. When will the right hon. Gentleman face up to that fact?
    Mr. Younger: The truly innocent men, and their families, are the working miners who have been victimised shamefully. If striking miners have a case against them in law, they should come before the courts in the proper way. If they have complaints about their treatment by the NCB, they have recourse to an industrial tribunal, which is a perfectly fair process.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend stress to the STUC that the disastrous consequences of the strike for the potentially profitable coal faces at Frances and Seafield collieries have resulted in a considerable loss of jobs and
    300
    opportunities for the Fife economy? Does that not show that strikes rarely do anyone any good, and frequently do many people a great deal of harm?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those coal faces and jobs in Fife were lost by the deliberate actions of the NUM in calling a strike. I am extremely apprehensive that for many years to come there will be many effects from this disastrous strike.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State reflect on his answers? We have moved from the strike and are anxious that the union should be allowed to represent its members on an individual basis. Will the right hon. Gentleman lend his good offices to ensure, with the STUC and the NUM, that the NCB considers each of the more than 200 cases individually? Will he further lend his good offices to ensure that good industrial relations are reinstated in the Scottish coalfield, in the interests of the coalfield, of the Scottish economy and of re-establishing a good coal industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: The question of relations between the NCB and its employees is one which must be pursued with the NCB. If the unions wish to do so, they can represent members who appear before industrial tribunals. The NUM has caused the real damage. It would be much better if it put its weight behind recovery in the industry.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost of an inefficient mining industry is unnecessarily high coal prices, and that that is potentially far more damaging to the many industries in Scotland which depend on energy? Does he further agree that if the NCB does not have the resources available to invest in uneconomic pits, they should be offered to private buyers? Will he say that when he next meets the STUC?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions. A few weeks ago I had a long discussion with the STUC about the effects of the miners' strike. My hon. Friend is right to point out that if coal prices are made higher by industrial action, that must reduce the potential market for coal and jobs arising from the mining of coal. That comes back to the point that the NUM's actions have done a great deal of damage to the Scottish coalfield.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State cast his mind back to his meeting with the officials of the Polmaise colliery, Stirling district council and the central region, before the miners' strike started, about the potential closure of that colliery—the reason why the strike was started in the first place? Will he assure the House, as he did my constituents and local government colleagues, that he will do everything in his power to support that colliery and enable it to produce the coal that is so desperately needed in the central region? Will he assure us that the Scottish Office will back the colliery against Mr. MacGregor's wishes for closure?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's reference to that meeting makes me feel extremely sad, as it took place shortly before the strike, and I offered to do all that I could to help. I shall always try to do anything that I can to help employment in Scotland, wherever it is. However, since then the same people whom I met and to whom I offered help were solidly on strike for almost a year and did immense damage both to their pit and to the entire

    301
    industry. They cannot wipe the slate clean. The blame for the disastrous effects on the Scottish coal industry lies with Mr. Scargill and the entire NUM.
    Mr. Dewar: Can the Minister confirm that, as has been stated recently by the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Employment, an individual review is being conducted by the board? If so, does he agree that the rules of natural justice should be observed and that the men concerned should have the right to a hearing and to representation? Without that, we shall never escape from the conclusion that any review is merely tokenism and a gesture to get the board out of a difficult position over a wide spectrum of Scottish opinion.
    Mr. Younger: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the Secretary of State for Energy wrote me a letter, which was publicised, in which he said that he had made it clear that the National Coal Board would be examining the cases which had been in dispute, but that that did not alter the fact that the proper course is to go before the industrial tribunals. There is a right to representation before the tribunals and the men concerned have recourse to proper procedure in that way.

    Teachers Superannuation Scheme
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the report on the quinquennial review of the Teachers Superannuation Scheme (Scotland) has been received by him; and if he will give a date when it will be laid before Parliament.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report from the Government Actuary. I am not therefore in a position to say when it will be laid before Parliament.
    Mr. McKelvey: You must be outraged by that answer, Mr. Speaker. The English counterpart for this period, which is 1976 to 1981, was dealt with in December 1983, and the Scottish Office is dragging almost four years behind. I ask for an assurance that no sort of Machiavellian trick will feature in the negotiations over teachers' conditions. It is a disgrace that teachers' working conditions and pensions have not been reported on and that the current information is four years out of date. Will the Minister give an assurance that if the employers have to increase their contributions, the Scottish Office will back the additional contributions with increased budgets?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman will know from his obviously deep knowledge of the subject that the production of the report is a matter for the independent Government Actuary. It is not a matter over which we in the Scottish Office have direct control. However, I expect to receive the report shortly.
    Mr. Lambie: As a teacher's superannuation is dependent on his final year's salary, will the Minister give an assurance that he will begin a new initiative to try to resolve the present industrial dispute within Scottish schools following the decisions reached at the recent annual conference of the Educational Institute of Scotland at Inverness?
    Mr. MacKay: Negotiations on teachers' pay do not fall within my responsibility when they involve superannuation matters. Such matters are for my right hon.
    302
    and hon. Friends. However, my right hon. Friend is prepared to meet the teachers and the management side at any time to discuss the way forward.

    Agricultural Research and Advisory Services
    Mr. Bruceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish National Farmers Union to discuss the impact of cuts in the agricultural research and advisory services on farms in the less favoured areas.
    Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the Scottish National Farmers Union on 22 March 1985, when the future funding of agricultural research and development and of the advisory services was discussed. He has arranged to discuss this subject, among others, when he meets the president of the union next week.
    Mr. Bruce: I am surprised that it is so long since the Government met the union, in view of the great concern among farmers in Scotland about the Government's policy. Is the Minister aware that I and my colleagues met senior representatives of the Scottish National Farmers Union this week, when they expressed deep concern about Government policy on cutting advisory services and capital grants? Nearly 90 per cent. of Scotland's farmers are in less favoured areas, and they require the Secretary of State and his Ministers to stand up and fight for them. There are problems which are peculiar to Scotland, and so far the Government's policy is causing loss of morale and deep despair. Many farmers will be forced out of business and off the hill, and that will undermine rural communities.
    Mr. MacKay: My right hon. and hon. Friends meet the Scottish National Farmers Union at the times that I have stated, and they will meet representatives next week. when they will discuss these matters yet again. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the SNFU briefly at Ingliston, where these matters were discussed. It is worth reporting to the House, before we believe all the histrionics of the hon. Gentleman, that, even after the expenditure reductions are made, almost £29 million will be spent every year on research and development and advisory services in Scotland.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the need for a comprehensive research and advisory service for Scottish agriculture in the difficult years of change that lie ahead? How can such a comprehensive research and advisory service be established if in the coming 18 months the Government go ahead with a 41 per cent. cut in the budget for this work?
    Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have realised that I said that, even after the reductions in expenditure, about £29 million will be spent on research and development in 1987–88. That is a considerable sum of public money which is still being spent on research and development.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cutback may be a good measure, as imports of agricultural machinery increased by 112 per cent. during that period?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is correct to point to what has happened during the past few years. The claims of Opposition parties about the effect of research and

    303
    development are exaggerated. Research is conducted in many more places than just the Government research institutes. The industry conducts research into a number of matters.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that his reply is causing concern to some of us. I had an Adjournment debate on this subject, because this matter affects my constituents on the Bush estate, Penicuik area. The Monister's colleague, Lord Gray, has written to me saying that the whole matter will be considered in relation to the submissions. Overwhelming Scottish opinion is that the Government's policy is wrong. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Department has reconsidered this matter since Lord Gray wrote to me?
    Mr. MacKay: A consultation paper on future strategy for research and development was issued on 30 May. Consideration is being given to the comments that were received. I think that I explained the position to the hon. Gentleman in his Adjournment debate. That is still the position.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I accept that £29 million will be available in 1986–87, but is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern that has been expressed by universities, colleges and farmers in the less favoured areas? Will my hon. Friend continue with the consultation to which he referred in a written parliamentary answer to ensure that that cut is not implemented until there is a satisfactory solution to the problem?
    Mr. MacKay: We shall take account of all the observations made to us as a result of the research and development consultative paper. A similar paper on the advisory service will be published shortly. We shall take account of all those matters. I am sure that the colleges, in their observations, will be mindful of the importance of the advisory services keeping a high profile in the less favoured areas.
    Mr. Wilson: Why did the hon. Gentleman tamely pass on to the Scottish advisory services the cuts that had first been produced in England? Does he realise that a high proportion of the farms in ill favoured areas will not be able to afford the fees for the advice that they need to cope with the changes that will be imposed through the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. MacKay: The reductions in expenditure were not passed on from England. They were part and parcel of the negotiations with the Treasury on the total amount of spending on agriculture in England, Wales and Scotland. Even after these reductions are made, £29 million will still be spent on research and development. A total of £34 million will still be spent on research and development and the advisory services.
    Mr. Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that £29 million is 41 per cent. less than the amount being spent at present? Has he and, more importantly, his noble Friend come to understand that the link in Scotland between research and development and the advisory services is much greater than that which prevails in England and Wales? Is he aware that the cuts in Scotland will do irreparable damage to agriculture? The Minister should withdraw these proposals.
    Mr. MacKay: I cannot believe that a continuing total expenditure of £34 million for 1987–88 represents
    304
    irreparable damage. We shall be considering how to make those reductions after discussions with the colleges and research institutes, after taking the advice of the Priorities Board on priorities for research and development and after listening to the observations of the National Farmers Union.

    Agriculture Industry
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current situation within Scottish agriculture.
    Mr. John MacKay: Last year good weather conditions and improved efficiency contributed towards the significant recovery in Scottish farm incomes.
    It is too early to predict income levels for 1985.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that the new capital grants scheme which has just been announced by the Government has already been described by the president of the National Farmers Union in Scotland as a further attack on United Kingdom farm competitiveness? As some of the more marginal smaller farmers in Ross-shire are going to the wall, will he explain why the cuts which have been announced in the new scheme go far beyond what was anticipated or expected by Europe?
    Mr. MacKay: The new scheme, which gives grant rates of 30 per cent. for the less favoured areas and 15 per cent. for other areas, provides meaningful levels of assistance which will allow adequate investment in farming.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that barley is important to Scottish agriculture. He will also realise that it is an essential ingredient in the manufacture of Scotch. When distilleries close, that affects the market for barley. Is my hon. Friend aware that Arthur Bell and Sons is the only company in Scotland which has been opening distilleries? Will he advise Mr. Ernest Saunders of Guinness that hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested in the current problem, which is of importance to us all?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has rather ingeniously introduced matters that are rather far from agriculture. I shall leave the matter at my boundary of responsibility by confirming that barley makes splendid whisky.

    Polkemmet
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has sent to the West Lothian district council evidence to the Cooper committee on Polkemmet, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend does not propose to comment on this document. The closure of collieries is a management matter for the NCB in which it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do Ministers dispute the West Lothian figures?
    Mr. Stewart: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy told the hon. Gentleman on Monday, he will be responding to the council's statement and the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Dewar: Surely the Minister recognises that it is unsatisfactory to say that he will not respond. It sounds almost as if he is saying that he has no interest in the matter. It is an area which has already been traumatised by the British Leyland closure at Bathgate, where unemployment is appallingly high, where Polkemmet is an important source of jobs, and which is interrelated with the whole Ravenscraig issue. Does he not recognise that the Government have a duty to take an interest and to make it clear that they will help an area which is determined to help itself, as the Cooper report underlines?
    Mr. Stewart: I can only repeat what I have told the House, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy will be responding to the point about that document. I shall underline the Government's commitment to the Bathgate area. Good progress has been made on the Bathgate working party's various recommendations. For example, I am pleased to note that agreement has been reached on the financing of the restoration work on the Bathgate-Edinburgh rail link, which will commence shortly with a view to the line re-opening in about May 1986. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the range of other measures that have resulted from the joint working party on Bathgate.

    Trout Protection
    Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consideration he has given to imposing a trout protection order on the Tay system under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976.
    Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. Friend has before him the formal proposals for a protection order, the objections and representations resulting from the advertisement of the proposals, and the views of the consultative committee on freshwater fisheries, which met recently.
    Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to clarify the Government's attitude to the widespread concern felt about trout stock levels in the Tay, and also more generally about salmon and freshwater fish stock levels?
    Mr. MacKay: I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking this order, as we do all others, seriously. As he correctly points out, there will be a danger to the future of brown trout fishing if the current rise in various unsavoury fishing practices using set lines and the like continue.
    Mr. Corrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that bringing in an order in one area merely puts pressure on other areas throughout Scotland? We must be careful to ensure that we do not slowly shut off some places as a result of the dreadful pressure on areas such as the south-west of Scotland.
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. We have some experience of it in my constituency. But, simply because of the drawback, we should not decline to implement the Labour Government's Act and put protection orders on those parts of the country which come forward with them.
    I suggest to my hon. Friend that in his part of the country the angling clubs and the owners might consider getting together and putting forward protection orders of their own.

    Springburn (Job Creation)
    Mr. Martinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to attract new industries to Springburn in view of the British Rail Engineering Ltd., redundancy announcements.
    Mr. Younger: A contract was recently placed for a privately funded 130,000 sq ft business park at Port Dundas, which is expected to accommodate 300 jobs. In addition, the SDA and BREL have jointly funded a study into alternative employment opportunities in Springburn.
    Mr. Martin: When the Secretary of State last spoke to this House about Springburn, he said that a study would be before the House soon. Exactly when will we get the results of the study? He knows full well that it will take more than an industrial park at Port Dundas to resolve the problems of Springburn.
    Mr. Younger: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern that the study is urgently needed. I understand that the agency has received a draft report and expects the final version any time now. It will then move to assess the recommendations as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Hirst: As I also have constituents in Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch who will be affected by the proposed redundancies at BREL, will my right hon. Friend make representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the establishment of an enterprise zone at Springburn?
    Mr. Younger: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. He may be aware that a great deal of good news has been apparent in Glasgow in recent months. Glasgow-based companies have been winning contracts or committing investment at the rate of a staggering £33 million a month. Many of the projects are designed to refurbish the city—a £5 million contract for the business park at Port Dundas, a new £2·5 million meat market, £7 million to refurbish Gartnavel hospital, a multi-channel cable system costing £15 million, new investment at Glasgow airport, a new commercial centre for Bridgeton. and a £10 million extension to a city centre hotel
    Mr. Craigen: In view of the despairingly high level of unemployment in the north of the city—and particularly of a long-term nature—will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that he will take a personal interest in trying to generate more employment in the north of the city?
    Will the Secretary of State agree to look again at BREL, in view of its importance to the Springburn area?
    Mr. Younger: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be taking a very close interest. It is for BREL to decide on its operations. As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, there has been a great deal of help for Glasgow recently. In the past six years there has been over £735 million of new investment, and 33,000 new and safeguarded jobs in the Glasgow travel-to-work area.

    Royal Highland Show (Ministerial Speech)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech delivered at the Royal Highland Show on 17 June.
    Mr. John MacKay: No speech was delivered, but my right hon. Friend answered some questions asked by representatives of the press.
    Mr. Maclennan: When, in those summarised remarks, the Secretary of State accepted that the Government still intended to support the farming industry, he was greeted with total incredulity. Does the Minister realise that, since the announcement of the capital grant cuts of a week ago, with reductions from 70 to 30 per cent. in the less favoured areas, in grants available for re-seeding, fencing and drainage, the Government will be regarded as completely opposed to the interests of farming in 87 per cent. of the areas covered?
    Mr. MacKay: I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's point about 30 and 15 per cent. still being fairly high levels of grant, which we believe will keep up agricultural investment. On the livestock compensatory allowances the Government spent £37·9 million; on the beef premium scheme we spent £22·4 million; on the Buckler cow premium scheme £9·4 million; and on the sheep variable premium scheme £23·9 million. I suggest that the hon. Member takes a more balanced view.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Had my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State been able to make a speech at the Royal Highland Show, would he have taken the opportunity to respond to the remarks by the chairman of the Countryside Commission, who has expressed considerable concern that tax avoidance schemes are resulting in the development of large-scale commercial forestry operations in Scotland? These are threatening fishing and tourist interests, and are resulting in inflated land values which threaten the future of hill farming. As he did not have an opportunity to make such a speech, will he undertake to investigate this matter?
    Mr. MacKay: I shall not attempt to say what my right hon. Friend would have said if he had made a speech. Forestry has an important role to play in the countryside. I accept that forests must be planted in such a way as to be compatible with the interests of agriculture and with the environment in general. For the long term benefit of the country and for employment, the forestry industry has an important role to play.

    Drunkenness (Designated Places)
    Mr. Hugh Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many designated places under section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 have been established; whether any current applications are being considered; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John MacKay: One, at Albyn House, Aberdeen. Applications for grant are currently being considered for designated places in Dundee, Paisley and Peterhead.
    Mr. Brown: Where does the Minister place most of the blame for the delay and poor response to an idea that has been accepted by everyone in the field as being urgent, necessary and useful?
    Mr. MacKay: I shall resist the temptation to place blame. As the hon. Member knows, I have encouraged the concept of these places. The Government's powers are restricted to helping voluntary organisations, and local authorities are expected to play their part in assisting schemes of direct local benefit. I hope that some of the schemes which are currently coming to us will prove to be ones we can support, and which local authorities can also play their part in supporting.
    Dr. Godman: Designated places, while most welcome, tackle only a small area of alcohol abuse—
    308
    public drunkenness. When will the Government consider giving a part of the massive revenues which accrue from the sale of alcohol to educational programmes, particularly those for the young?
    Mr. MacKay: It is important that we convince people that drinking sensibly and in moderation is perfectly satisfactory, and that alcohol abuse can be dangerous. The Scottish health education group carries out advertising campaigns and distributes packs of various kinds to help on the issue. We also encourage schools, as part and parcel of their general health education scheme, to draw attention to that programme.
    Mr. McQuarrie: My hon. Friend mentioned Peterhead. He will be aware that there is an application from Whitehill House in Peterhead which is run by a voluntary organisation. The application was made in May this year. When is my hon. Friend likely to come to a decision on that application? I hope that the answer will be favourable.
    Mr. MacKay: We are looking carefully at the applications from Peterhead, Dundee and Paisley. I cannot say when I shall reach a conclusion. We shall try to do it as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Craigen: The Minister said that he had three proposals before him. How many applications have there been in total from voluntary bodies and local authorities for detoxification centres? Will the Minister have another look at the three-year funding arrangements?
    Mr. MacKay: I cannot answer in detail the first part of the hon. Member's question. I have no evidence that the funding arrangements are stopping the programmes from coming forward. If there were evidence that that was the case I would look at that as I have looked recently at joint funding between health boards and local authorities.

    Rate Relief
    Mr. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received about the operation of the Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Act 1985.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I have received a small number of representations on various points. Many of these points were the subject of debates in both Houses of Parliament before the passage of the Act last month. The others, relating more to the detail of the rebate scheme, have all been the subject of discussion with officials of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, rating authorities and assessors.
    Mr. Marshall: What has happened to the £20 million shortfall of the £50 million promised at Perth to hard-pressed ratepayers? Will the Minister reconsider the matter in the light of the statement by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who said publicly that he is in favour, as we are, of the entire £50 million being used? Has the Minister received any representations to that effect from the Solicitor-General?
    Mr. Ancram: First, there is no £20 million shortfall. The scheme was always designed to be demand-led—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may mock that, but I remember that about three months ago they were talking

    309
    about figures considerably below £30 million, which is unprecedented and generous support at this time. I have discussed the matter with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. He is content with the scheme that we shall debate tonight, and he assures me that he will join us in the Lobby.
    Mr. Fairbairn: As my hon. Friend is in the almost unique position of having been promised more money by the Treasury than he needs, will he use that example to ensure that the Treasury agrees forthwith with the Secretary of State and abolishes the distinction between guidelines and assessed needs, so that the inequity suffered by those who are above the guidelines but below the assessed needs can also be abolished forthwith?
    Mr. Ancram: My hon. and learned Friend has raised this matter previously. He will be aware from statements by me and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that this matter is being seriously considered by the Government.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Do the Government still intend to replace the rating system during this Parliament?
    Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are reviewing the system of local government finance. We have made it clear that we hope to introduce proposals at about the year end. It would not be right for me to pre-empt the consideration that leads to those proposals.
    Mr. Corrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that several large companies, including Roche and Shell in my area, will receive no rebate under this order? Will he ensure that their appeals are heard reasonably soon, because they face large rate increases this year?
    Mr. Ancram: I appreciate the need for appeals to be heard as swiftly as possible. Obviously, that is in the interests not only of the appellants but of the assessors, and I shall try to keep an eye on the matter.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister stand by the statement of the Secretary of State that a manifesto pledge on rating reform will not be good enough for Scottish Conservatives at the next election? Does the Minister accept that he cannot shrug off the £20 million as though it was small change? Is it not a scandal that the Secretary of State should parade the £50 million that he extracted from the Treasury as a battle honour at the Conservative party conference, and then simply not deliver? What does the Minister mean by the phrase "demand-led"? Is he trying to say that there is no demand from Scotland's hard-pressed ratepayers for the additional £20 million which they were promised, but out of which they are now being cheated?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because we have debated the matter several times, that the Government had to decide on a multiplier beyond which the effects of revaluation would be unfair on those who had to bear them. We decided to have a multiplier of three, which was below the overall effect of the Labour Government's revaluation, when no help was given to ratepayers. It is a fair figure. When I say that the system is demand-led, I mean that the amount spent under the scheme depends on the number of those eligible under that multiplier.
    310
    As to my right hon. Friend's statement, the hon. Gentleman will have heard what he said. That remains the case.

    Economic Prospects
    Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about current economic prospects in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: Last month the Scottish CBI reported optimism in manufacturing continuing to grow with orders and output showing strong positive trends, investment in plant and machinery showing an upturn, and employment trends strengthening.
    Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply and I welcome the action that the Government have taken to stimulate the creation of new jobs in Scotland. Does he agree, however, that uncertainty over the future of Ravenscraig is casting a long shadow over economic and employment prospects in Scotland? While I accept that the BSC corporate plan is not yet available, will he reassure me and the House that he and his ministerial colleagues will fight like tigers for steel jobs in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate that there is widespread concern about the future of Ravenscraig and, when the BSC has submitted its corporate plan, I can assure my hon. Friend that Ministers will have to consider it very carefully. At present, however, there are many other good developments in the Scottish economy, including a record level of investment in new projects, which I expect to continue.
    Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that, contrary to some suggestions in the press and elsewhere, there is widespread concern in Scotland at the Guinness takeover bid for the highly successful Scottish company of Arthur Bell and Sons, and that some of the statements by Guinness are not only unpersuasive but positively misleading? Will he put his weight behind the pressure for a reference of this bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    Mr. Younger: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is a strictly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I of course remain extremely interested in the subject, and I have personally seen representatives of both companies.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Terrorism
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will give details of the instructions which his Department has given to procurators fiscal in connection with the prosecution of individuals charged with acts of terrorism.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): No, Sir.
    Mr. Walker: I realise that my hon. and learned Friend cannot make a statement on specific cases, but does he agree that, had it not been for the powers which the police in Strathclyde had under the Prevention of Terrorism

    311
    (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, the explosives which were discovered there recently would never have been found?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Clearly, I cannot comment on any individual case. However, I think that my hon. Friend's more general proposition is correct. We have a very real problem with terrorism, and the powers which are now given under the Act to allow for detention for a longer period seem in many circumstances to be more than justified.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Solicitor-General aware that not so long ago an hon. Member was detained and roughed up by the Glasgow police—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I refer of course to myself. Will the Solicitor-General ensure that this does not happen again to other Members of Parliament or to trade unionists, because repeatedly the Prevention of Terrorism Act is used against trade unionists?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I certainly was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had ever been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. However, if he has a complaint to make against the police he should, as a responsible Member of Parliament, make that complaint properly so that it can be investigated, so that such allegations do not remain unsubstantiated and, if necessary, can be properly tested in the courts.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Solicitor-General resist any temptations from the extreme Right or the extreme Left to put political pressure on the procurators fiscal?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am wholly at one with the hon. Gentleman in believing that the system of procurators fiscal in Scotland is a fine feature of our legal system. They stand independent and objective in the prosecution of crime in Scotland. Both my noble and learned Friend and I would be very anxious to ensure that that status is always maintained.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. and learned Friend have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and urge them to urge on the Metropolitan police the discretion of the Strathclyde police? The apparent desire of the Metropolitan police to advertise their genius in London did a great deal to undermine the magnificent work of the Strathclyde police force, which would probably have resulted in more arrests and more fines in the matter which it had under review.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I take the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes, but I cannot comment on the individual case. He will be aware that where people are awaiting trial, given the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, it would be extremely ill-advised for anyone—police officer, Minister or anyone else—to comment on such cases lest, in one way or another, that might prejudice the right to a fair trial.

    Rape
    Dr. Godmanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland against how many people proceedings have been instituted for rape and related offences in the last three months.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Proceedings were taken against 76 people in April, May and June.
    Dr. Godman: During the course of a recent rape trial in the High Court at Paisley. the names and addresses of the the two accused were published in the Greenock Telegraph. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in the interests of fairness, the names and addresses of the accused in rape trials should not be permitted to be published unless or until they are found guilty?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have seen the press reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I see no breach of the law in the way in which publication was made in the journal concerned. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that during our proceedings on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, we considered that very matter in Committee. A new clause was moved to deal with it but, after consideration, it was withdrawn. Provision is made for the anonymity of complainers, but in Scotland, if the accused are adults, the giving of names and addresses is permitted.

    Coal Mining Dispute
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what are the most recent conveniently available statistics he has for prosecutions during the miners' dispute.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In all. 1,012 people have been prosecuted for incidents arising out of the miners' dispute; 721 of those have been convicted; while 227 have been acquitted. There are still 64 cases pending.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the Minister's attitude towards the forthcoming Ealing meeting between Mr. McGahey and Mr. Loudon on this subject.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As Solicitor-General for Scotland, I have no opinion on that matter. As I have said repeatedly in answers to questions on the subject, it is a matter of prosecutions before the criminal courts. Issues of industrial dispute and questions of unfair dismissal are to be resolved either as a matter of negotiation or before the tribunals that are established to determine whether there has been an unfair dismissal. It is not for me to comment on that.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, among those acquitted, there have been reported instances of people who have also been dismissed? Will he, with his legal background and training, explain to the Secretary of State for Energy the distinction between unfair dismissal cases, which can lead to compensation but not necessarily to reinstatement, and the conciliation procedure, which can lead to people who have been unfairly dismissed being reinstated in their jobs?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he is wrong to assume that either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Energy fails to understand the issues. My right hon. Friends and I have said repeatedly that it is a matter for the National Coal Board to determine. If it has it wrong, there are tribunals that deal with matters of unfair dismissal, where remedies of one sort or another are available to those who complain.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of persistent rumours that there has been harassment of miners who worked during

    313
    the strike and their families, will my hon. and learned Friend say whether there have been any prosecutions of that nature since the dispute?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is obviously difficult for me to identify that or to give any statistical information. However, on an anecdotal basis, I am aware that cases have come before the courts involving assaults and breach of the peace in which those who were involved have been working miners or those who have been on strike. How directly those come out of the miners' strike is an issue on which I cannot give a concluded view.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the NCB has written to chief constables asking that the NCB be allowed to precognosce police officers before they attend industrial tribunals? Apart from any question concerning the legality of that, does the hon. and learned Gentleman not think that it would be a waste of time as well as interference?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No. Generally, in Scotland, if people are to be required as witnesses before courts or tribunals, it would seem good sense that before they come into the court or the tribunal to give evidence, some sign as to what their evidence is likely to be should be given. If people are seeking to precognosce policemen, that would seem a sensible step.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that I have written to him about a specific case that is illustrative of the issue generally, the case of Mr. Allan Collins. Sheriff Reid in Dunfermline has shown his concern that the miner involved in that case should not suffer the double jeopardy of being fined by the court and being dismissed by the Coal Board. Whatever else may be at issue, the Solicitor-General has some responsibility for saying clearly to the House and the country that, in the interests of justice, miners who have expunged their responsibilities to society should not suffer the severe penalty of being dismissed by the Coal Board.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman used the term double jeopardy, which I might
    314
    use in a rather more technical sense. I am aware of the case, and the hon. Gentleman is aware that, following the concern that the sheriff has shown, steps were taken to have that case adjourned and brought before him at a later stage. I understand that that later stage has not yet occurred. Once again, I have to say that in those circumstances it would be wholly inappropriate for me in any way to express a view on it.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does it arise out of questions?
    Mr. Hamilton: It arises directly out of questions, Mr. Speaker, and you will probably know the point that I am about to raise.
    You might recall, as I do, when Prime Minister's questions came after question No. 45, and that question was often reached. Today, and this is not for the first time in Scottish questions, we reached only No. 12 by 3.20 and we had no less than 10 minutes on question No. 2 on the miners' strike, which is as important to me as to other hon. Members. However, there are more nurses in Scotland than miners, and some of us attach as much importance to nurses' conditions as we do to those of miners.
    My point of order is simple. My question is No. 13, which was not reached. It relates specifically to nurses' wages and how that the interests of patients will be jeopardised because of the way in which the wage increase is to be financed. This is extremely important. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, consider questions carefully before you come to the Chamber, and I hope that next time you will assess the relative importance of questions. I hope that when next I table a question on this important matter you will take this occasion into account and take steps to see that my question is reached.
    Mr. Speaker: In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I agree that we did not make good progress. I interrupted on two occasions, and many times from a sedentary position, as both questions and answers were very long.

Teachers (Pay)
Mr. Giles Radice (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the dispute on teachers' pay following the adjournment of the talks in the early hours of this morning.
3.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I regret that there was not a settlement to the teachers' pay dispute by early this morning. I am sure that the whole House shares that regret. The Government are clear that they want the dispute settled and our schools back to normal, but not at any price.
Yesterday, the management side made clear its willingness to see a settlement involving 5 per cent. for all teachers from 1 April this year, with an underpinning figure of £480 a year. In addition, it was willing to contemplate a merger of scales 1 and 2 with effect from 1 September and a further 1 per cent. on all scale points with effect from 1 November, provided that agreement could be reached in principle with the teachers on a total structure package covering pay and conditions to be discussed with me in time for any resulting agreement to be built into next October's rate support grant decisions. That would have given teachers a money increase of a little over 5·8 per cent. this year and the base line for teacher salary negotiaions beyond November 1985 would have been increased by over 6·4 per cent.
I understand that the employers made it clear that those figures took them to, and in many cases beyond, the limit of their ability to pay. The teachers were not willing to accept. The House is aware that I wrote on 21 May to the then chairman of the management panel about pay and conditions of service. I have since repeated the Government's position. We are not willing to make additional resources available for 1985–86 or to relax expenditure targets and grant holdback arrangements for that year, but we are willing to make extra resources available for teachers' pay in 1986–87 and to help meet the cost of removing midday supervision of schools from teachers' standard duties provided—I must emphasise this—that there is satisfactory progress by October towards the Government's objectives for improving quality and standards in the education service.
I have made it plain that October is the critical period because of the timing of Government decisions on rate support grant. After yesterday's meeting, it is all the more important for local authorities and teachers, as well as the Government, that acceptable progress be made by October, thus allowing additional resources to be unlocked for the education service. As a result, local authorities would be able to offer substantially improved career and promotion prospects based on consideration of all of the relevant factors such as teachers' qualifications, skills and experience, the quality of the work done and the demands of particular teaching posts and the difficulty of filling them. Linked with that, the Government would want a clearer statement of teachers' duties. The Government are willing to consider whether midday supervision might not be outside the standard expectation and be arranged and paid for separately. I dearly invite local authority employers and teachers to make progress in those directions.
Mr. Radice: The Secretary of State has once again told the House about the contribution that he is prepared to make towards an agreement with the teachers next year, but parents want to know what, apart from general exhortation, he is doing to solve this year's dispute. I am disappointed that the Labour-led employers' imaginative new approach has not yet produced a settlement—[Laughter.] It is quite clear that Conservative Members are not interested in a settlement.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, during the 13-hour marathon session, the employers and the teachers demonstrated flexibility? Should not the Secretary of State show equal flexibility and help teachers and employers to bridge the gap that is still between them? Could he at least relax the RSG penalties? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour party is doing everything in its power to bring about an agreement.
Is it not about time that the Secretary of State descended from his ivory tower and did everything in his power to solve this dispute, which is proving to be so damaging to our education?
Sir Keith Joseph: The Government will not relax the target and penalty framework. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that I have been offering on behalf of the Government the same sort of contribution towards the financing of education on the same conditions as have been repeated frequently since 21 May for well over a year. The teachers have consistently refused to discuss it. It is not I who have lacked flexibility. As for the opportunities of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Labour Party, I would remind both him and them that they have allies in the teacher associations. What is he, and what are they, doing to bring the teacher associations, in particular the National Union of Teachers and their leaders—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are the Secretary of State."] The hon. Gentleman laid himself open to this question, since he asserted that he and his party are doing their best to bring the dispute to an end. I have to remind him, and it, that they have allies among the teacher unions, in particular among the leadership of the National Union of Teachers. What are they doing to bring those individuals to their senses and face reality? The pupils must come first. I should like for once to hear the hon. Gentleman put their interests before those of the unions.
Mr. David Madel: Should not the employers make sure that each individual teacher understands precisely what the latest offer is? Then the unions, with the help of ACAS, should ballot the teachers not only on the latest offer but on the wider issue of restructuring salaries.
Sir Keith Joseph: Mr. Teacher—Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.] Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, was a teacher, but that does not justify my slip of the tongue. My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I am not at all convinced that every individual teacher knows what is on offer from the Government. If I could find a way of making sure that all teachers did, I should pursue it. It would then be up to the teacher unions to pursue the idea of balloting, again in some cases, if they so decided.
Mr. Clement Freud: We agree that pay and conditions must be linked, but would not the Secretary of State agree that he must show a little more flexibility? Nobody will come out of this

317
dispute getting what he wants. Might he not think again about the 14 points in his letter of 21 May and at least agree some of the uncontentious points? It seems that the Government have two alternatives. The first is to do nothing and let the teachers and the employers stew. The other is to show a little understanding of what is going on and to depart a little from their inflexible position.
Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that I have offered, on behalf of the Government, additional money for teachers on condition that they cooperate in improving the effectiveness of schooling, which is, after all, for the benefit of the children.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: Since it must by now be abundantly clear to everyone, first that the Government will not add further funding this year for teachers' pay, and, secondly, that the employers have gone as far as they possibly can, as they said last night, within those limits is it not now in the teachers' own interests that they should start to talk immediately about restructuring pay and conditions so as to take advantage of what the Secretary of State has said about next year? Could my right hon. Friend consider whether it would help in that direction if he indicated the sort of figures that he might have in mind, should a suitable agreement be reached?
Sir Keith Joseph: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, but I shall be unable to give an indication of a figure for what might be available until some willingness to negotiate is shown and some progress has been made.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that the Government are grossly undervaluing teachers in the state sector and are responsible for the lack of the education that children would have received if the Government paid teachers a proper wage?
Why has the Secretary of State, at this time of all times, linked conditions of service with teachers' wages for the first time when they are saying that they should get their proper wage now and that they would be willing to discuss conditions of service and restructuring afterwards? Most people do not know that, because the press does not tell them. It is disgraceful that the alliance should have gone along with the Government in this.
Sir Keith Joseph: The Government are above all concerned with the effectiveness of schooling for the children. It is on that basis that we seek the co-operation of the teachers.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to discuss the salaries of head teachers and deputy head teachers separately? Will he bear in mind that for one spell of 13·5 hours last week, teachers' unions and the employers were talking separately and came together for only 18 minutes of negotiation? Does not that show that the Burnham structure has decayed and should be dispensed with?
Does my right hon. Friend know that the Labour education spokesman, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), shared a platform in outer London the other day with Militant Tendency and sacked miners and said that he was delighted that there were strikes in 14 schools, including two special schools? The Labour party, and especially the hon. Member for Durham, North, is damaging children. It is time that it stopped.
Sir Keith Joseph: I have to agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party seems to choose to support teachers the whole while, in conflict with the interests of the children. I am concerned that, as far as I can gather, the differentials of head teachers seem to have come under pressure during the negotiations. I hope that the importance of adequate differentials for heads and their deputies will be borne in mind.
Mr. David Young: Will the Secretary of State take on board the fact that if he were negotiating on behalf of a private organisation or company, he would rightly have been sacked many months ago? Will he also take on board the fact that the choice that he is giving teachers is either more flexibilityfrom the Government or that they should leave the profession if they want an adequate standard of living?
Sir Keith Joseph: No, there is a third alternative, which is to negotiate to secure additional money from the taxpayer so that transformed career and promotion prospects may be made available to teachers.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is it not clear that my right hon. Friend's letter of 21 May offers a sensible basis for the settlement of this difficult and long-running dispute? Would not it be helpful if the proposals in that letter were made more publicly available to the people who should know about them?
Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, indeed. If I could find a way to make them more publicly available, I should wish to pursue it, but my hon. Friend must remember that, as Secretary of State, I do not employ the teachers.
Mr. Derek Foster: If the Secretary of State will not stir a finger to achieve a settlement, will he stop denigrating the teachers and admit that, by his own action, he has forfeited their co-operation which he says is essential to what he wants to achieve?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am constantly paying tribute to the hard work, dedication and effectiveness of most teachers. I have stirred a finger to offer additional money in return for co-operation.
Mr. Radice: For next year.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: For next year.
Sir Keith Joseph: No, I have been offering it for the past year, in return for arrangements that would provide teachers with much better career and promotion prospects.
Mr. James Couchman: While I acknowledge that the entry pay for qualified teachers is not high, and that many teachers feel that they must take on administrative duties to enhance their top salary level, does my right hon. Friend agree that both parents and pupils will rightly feel dismayed at the breakdown of last night's talks, when they might otherwise have hoped that the new school year which begins in September would not be disrupted, especially pastoral and extramural studies?
Sir Keith Joseph: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Guy Barnett: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a consultant to the NUT, I have plenty of allies in the union, and, indeed, sufficient contact with teachers to know the measure of anger that they feel and

319
the degree to which teachers, including some of our best teachers, are voting with their feet? How often has the right hon. Gentleman met the teachers to discover those facts for himself?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am in the habit of accepting practically every opportunity given me to meet teachers. When I visit schools I always make plain my willingness to meet deputations of the staff. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the doubts expressed by some of my hon. Friends. Do all teachers know the shape of what the Government are offering? I wonder whether they do.

Johnson Matthey Bankers
3.51 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. I told the House on 20 June that if further investigations into the affairs of Johnson Matthey Bankers were to turn up any evidence of fraud, appropriate action would be taken. Investigations have been continuing since then. Although, strictly speaking, they have not so far established prima facie evidence of fraud, they have revealed serious and unexplained gaps in the records of Johnson Matthey Bankers, including the possibility of missing documents relating to substantial past transactions on certain accounts that are the subject of large losses.
In the light of that, Johnson Matthey Bankers has today requested the Commissioner of the City of London police to conduct a preliminary inquiry with a view to establishing whether any criminal offences may have been committed. The result of the inquiry will be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will advise what, if any, further action should be taken. The House will, of course, be kept informed.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was wholly right to inform the House of this latest development in the Johnson Matthey affair at the first opportunity, and I thank him for that. Obviously, it is not possible to speculate about the outcome of the police inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "But."] It is, however, essential to clarify the procedure which now follows. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that two prosecutions may now result from the unhappy affair: first, regarding the auditors, about which he told the House a month ago, and now Johnson Matthey Bankers? What is more, because of their mutual mismanagement, the Bank of England and the Government are involved in the whole episode. It grows increasingly difficult to answer the question why Johnson Matthey Bankers was bailed out in the first place, and so quickly.
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that the fullest revelation of all the facts is essential? Will he promise that after the police inquiries there will be a general inquiry into the whole Johnson Matthey Bankers' scandal, either by a Select Committee of the House or under the Tribunals of Inquiry of (Evidence) Act 1921?
Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for his initial welcome. He referred to the two matters which are now under way as if they are somehow similar. In fact, they are very different. There is the prospect of civil action by JMB, which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank of England, against the auditors Arthur Young McClelland Moores and Co. Secondly, there is the separate preliminary police inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why Johnson Matthey Bankers was bailed out. I gave a full explanation of that when I made my statement on 20 June, and the matter was covered fully in the annual report of the Bank of England. As for what might happen in future, I think that it is better at this stage to wait and see.
Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be very welcome, so

321
that the whole affair can be cleared up once and for all? Does he agree that if the Bank of England had not intervened in the Johnson Matthey affair there could have been a loss of confidence in the City, which would have been detrimental to the invisibles sector of the economy?
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. There were obvious dangers to the London gold market especially, which was a special and important feature of the case. It is striking how open the Government have been in revealing to the House details of this matter, in sharp contrast to what happened under the previous Labour Government during the lifeboat incident.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain to the House why it is only now that he is able to tell the House that serious and unexplained gaps in the records have come to light, when various skilled teams of investigators have been engaged in the Johnson Matthey investigation over the past six months? How much longer does he think it will take possibly to produce prima facie evidence?
Mr. Lawson: The fact that the documents were missing was not established until quite recently. Since the Bank of England took over Johnson Matthey it has stopped further out-flows and has been working to establish the full extent of the bad debts, which I reported to the House on 20 June. It has been engaged also in getting Johnson Matthey Bankers back into a shipshape and saleable condition, so as to protect taxpayers' and the Bank of England's money and that of the indemnifiers. The inquiry is not the only matter in which the Bank of England has been engaged, but I am satisfied that it is diligently pursuing the inquiry with the aid of its advisers. I am sure that it is as anxious as the House to have a prosecution for fraud if any evidence of fraud should be found.
Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the deplorable goings on at Johnson Matthey Bankers have caused the most acute embarrassment to many of my constituents who work successfully and honourably with the chemical division of Johnson Matthey? Will he emphasise that the two companies are quite separate, and in so doing wish every success to those who work in Johnson Matthey chemicals?
Mr. Lawson: I did so when my hon. Friend properly raised the matter on 20 June, and I gladly do so again now.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that if the Attorney-General had acted on 12 November 1984 when I asked him a question about the fraud squad's investigation of this matter there is a fair chance that some of the tracks that have probably since been covered up would have been found and explored thoroughly by the fraud squad?
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the Crown Agents' affair very few people were trapped at the end because there was too long a delay. In the London and Counties Security scandal, Gerald Kaplan managed to get to America because of the delay. The result is that he has got off scot free. In other words, he has obtained an amnesty. If the right hon. Gentleman compares the Johnson Matthey Bankers' affair with the Slater, Walker fiasco, and all the others that arose at about that time, he
322
will find that most of those involved got off scot free. Against that background, is he not open to the charge that, because he has delayed matters and refused to answer my questions and those of my hon. Friends, people such as James Firth, a director, whose son was employed by one of the largest borrowers from Johnson Matthey, have been able to cover up all their tracks? The borrower is a personal friend of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Is it not a scandal that the Chancellor has come to the House eight months after Johnson Matthey's exposure on 30 September? The result is that we will be lucky to get hold of any of the culprits, yet there are so many people to pick on. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not act against the Governor of the Bank of England? Why is the Governor not charged with the fact that he allowed so much neglect to take place? What about Michael Arnold, who worked for the auditors and apparently could not discover anything throughout 1984? One of those auditors is now in charge of looking after the NUM's funds. What a scandal this is.
Is it not a fact —
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has taken a special interest in this matter, but he must not make a speech.
Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that, by being so laggardly, the Chancellor and the Attorney-General, with the connivance of the Prime Minister, will allow these people to get off scot free while miners have been locked up in gaol for doing absolutely nothing?
Mr. Lawson: I resent and reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations. I had hoped that he would welcome my statement.
Mr. John Maples: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most difficult decisions that a central bank has to make from time to time is whether to rescue a particular financial institution? It is, by contrast, extremely easy for the Opposition to cast doubt on those decisions in ignorance of the full facts.
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is correct, but, strictly speaking, that is not the issue before the House. This is a serious matter. It concerns the fact that the Bank of England, through Johnson Matthey Bankers, has reached the point where sufficient suspicion has arisen through the missing documents to lead the Bank of England to feel justified in asking the City fraud squad to make a preliminary inquiry.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not clear that the rescue of Johnson Matthey Bankers, by comparison with a large number of firms which have been allowed to go to the wall, represents an error of judgment by the Chancellor? Does the right hon. Gentleman, agree that Johnson Matthey Bankers has shown itself to be the unacceptable face of capitalism, whereas the Chancellor's actions have shown themselves to be the unacceptable face of Government intervention?
Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. First, the decision to rescue JMB was not my decision but that of the Governor of the Bank of England. Secondly, it was not an incorrect decision. In my judgment, the Governor of the Bank of England was correct in taking that decision.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of us will think that he was right to make this statement, because the invisible earnings of the City of London are important to our balance of payments? Does my right hon. Friend accept that what has happened at Johnson Matthey is a scandal which should be investigated, wherever it goes, and whatever its results? Bearing in mind the City revolution to come, the loss of confidence in the City by events such as the Johnson Matthey incident and the fact that Lloyd's has cast a great cloud over many people's views of the City's reputation, should not the same strictures be applied to Lloyd's, as a police investigation would bear heavily upon many people involved in some of the disgraces there?
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend will know that investigations into Lloyd's are going on. The prosperity and future of our people are threatened by the unacceptable face of Socialism. Whereas we are acting properly against what the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) called the "unacceptable face of capitalism", the unacceptable face of Socialism is publicly embraced by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is the Chancellor aware that Mr. Michael Hepker, the chairman of a public company, Sumrie Clothes Ltd., who today left the country, has been leading the Bank of England auditors, Graham Mark and Robin Collier, up the garden path ever since the collapse of Johnson Matthey in relation to a £1·5 million loan made to Ravensbury Investments, an offshore Isle of Man company, which loan involved a whole series of frauds, including a fraud on Johnson Matthey? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on 29 June 1982 Eric Ellen, the director of the International Bureau of Maritime Fraud, went to see Ian Fraser, a director of Johnson Matthey, to tell him about various proven misdemeanours in which Mr. Mahmud Sipra, who controls the El Saeed empire which led to the collapse of Johnson Matthey, had been involved? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, on 12 December 1982, he telephoned Mr. Fraser to tell him that Mr. Sipra was caught up in a £3 million fraud and that it was ridiculous to continue to lend him money, only to be met with the reply by Mr. Fraser, "You chaps are all the same. You don't give anyone a chance."? Will the Chancellor give a guarantee that he will come to the House next week, when I hope to present further details of fraud at Johnson Matthey?
Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Gentleman has any relevant evidence, I hope that he will immediately make it available to the police.
Mr. Eric Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his assurance that if any fraud is uncovered the matter will be brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions is little comfort, in view of the repeated lethargy of that department? I remind my right hon. Friend that fraud at Lloyd's was uncovered more than 12 months ago, yet no action has been brought by the DPP.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Wide questions promote wide answers.
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Is the Chancellor aware that his statement makes nonsense of the Prime
324
Minister's reply to me last Thursday, which was reinforced in her Monday letter to me, when she said that she saw no purpose in an inquiry into the relationship between Johnson Matthey and companies to which loans had been made? Does not everything that the Chancellor has said today underline the need for such an inquiry? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to shake the Prime Minister's complacency about Johnson Matthey?
Mr. Lawson: There is no question of complacency on the part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself, any member of the Government or the Governor of the Bank of England. We have acted throughout on all the evidence that has been made available. It was impossible to act before there was any evidence. Now that further facts have come to light, the Bank of England and Johnson Matthey Bankers, without any delay, have called in the police, who will report to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr. John Stokes: Disregarding much of what the Opposition have said, is my right hon. Friend aware that the honesty and integrity of the City of London is at stake? We look to my right hon. Friend to help us in every possible way.
Mr. Lawson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the honesty and integrity of the City of London are of the first importance. As I made clear in my statement of 20 June, it would be wholly wrong to assume that the shambles, and worse, at Johnson Matthey Bankers was in any way characteristic or typical of banking in the City of London. It does no good to this country to pretend otherwise.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the large companies which were caught, a large number of small businesses are affected? I know of the tragedy of a small concern in Norfolk which had been built up over 30 years and which has gone to the wall. Does the Chancellor's announcement offer any hope that, after a lifetime of work, these small businesses will be rescued from bankruptcy?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That question has nothing to do with Johnson Matthey.
Viscount Cranborne: Now that my right hon. Friend has set such a good example in dealing with white collar fraud, can we expect him to encourage the responsible authorities to promote similar investigations into the Lloyd's insurance market?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is no good, either.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the Chancellor to give an assurance that every penny of public money expended on rescuing that bank will be returned to the public purse before the company is again privatised? May we now have a copy of the Price Waterhouse report?
Mr. Lawson: As I made clear to the hon. Gentleman earlier, the Price Waterhouse report contains details which, because of the law relating to banking confidentiality, cannot be revealed. It also bears upon the legal action which the Bank of England and Johnson Matthey Bankers contemplate against Arthur Young McClelland Moores and Co. On the hon. Gentleman's point about money being returned before privatisation, the money that will be received by the Bank of England as a

325
result of the privatisation of Johnson Matthey Bankers will play an important part in the recovery of funds which have been expended.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did it come to the Chancellor's ears from around the gold market and elsewhere in the City before Christmas that there was a likelihood of fraud being involved? On what date, before or after Christmas, were Sir Robert Armstrong, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor warned of the likelihood of fraud in the Johnson Matthey Bankers case?
Mr. Lawson: I received no such warning at any time. The Bank of England discovered the documents to be missing last week.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: As it becomes increasingly apparant that a large sum of public money has been involved in fraud, will the Chancellor give the House an assurance that if, after the fraud squad's inquiries, the Director of Public Prosecutions reveals that the villians have fled, he will dismiss the Governor of the Bank of England, and resign?
Mr. Lawson: No, Sir.
Mr. Hattersley: Does the Chancellor agree that the exchanges of the past few minutes confirm the need for a general inquiry? At some point, must he not answer the question why, when my hon. Friends below the Gangway suspected fraud six months ago, the Bank of England suspected it only yesterday?
Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman's colleagues below the Gangway suspect fraud on every occasion, whether or not there happens to be any evidence of it.

Wages Councils
4. 11 pm
Mr. John Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The substance of the statement on wages councils which is about to be given to the House was reported in The London Standard at 2 o'clock this afternoon. I wonder whether you can say what rules govern these matters, because many Opposition Members read in the evening paper what the Minister was going to say.
Mr. Speaker: The House will be aware that I have the greatest sympathy with what the hon. Member has said. If statements which are embargoed are issued to the press, they should not be printed.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King) indicated dissent.
Mr. Speaker: If they are embargoed, they should not be printed before the statement is given to the House.
Mr. King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In case there is any misunderstanding, may I say that I share the feelings of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about this matter. No embargoed statement was issued to the press. The House will have to draw its own conclusions as to whether there has been a leak. I take the strongest exception to leaks from my Department. I bitterly regret the fact that this has happened.
Mr. Prescott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has acted honourably in giving that statement. Will he look into the matter further and tell us later how the report occurred?
Mr. King: If I can, because I should dearly love to do so.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. King, to make his statement.
4.13 pm
Mr. Tom King: With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement concerning the Government's intentions on the future of wages councils and on international labour convention No. 26.
As the House will know, I published in March a consultation paper on the future of wages councils. That canvassed two main options: either total abolition or reform of the system—including, in particular, the limitation of their powers and duties and the removal of young people from the scope of wages councils.
In addition to the report from the Select Committee on Employment, over 700 organisations and individuals responded to the consultation paper. While the TUC and individual trade unions favoured retention, the consultations confirmed that there is a widespread dissatisfaction among employers with the present wages council system. The majority of them favoured a range of substantial reforms to meet these concerns. I promised to inform the House as soon as the Government had taken decisions on those matters, following the ending of the consultative period.
The Government's overriding concern is to promote employment and to remove any excessive burdens on employers. The present system inhibits the creation of more jobs and that is especially true in the case of young

327
people. The present powers of wages councils also undoubtedly impose complex and unnecessary burdens on business. The Government believe that the case for radical reform is clearly made, and propose to introduce early legislation which will, first, remove all young people under 21 from any regulation by wages councils.
Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
Mr. King: Secondly, it will confine wages councils to setting only a single minimum hourly rate and a single overtime rate for those aged 21 and over.
I shall also be proposing new powers which will significantly simplify the procedures under which the Secretary of State may modify or abolish individual councils.
Following consultation, the Government have decided to deratify international labour convention No. 26 and I shall be informing the International Labour Organisation of our decision within the next few days. The window for denunciation opened on 14 June and it is necessary to give 12 months' notice before the convention ceases to apply. That will therefore mean that, subject to the progress of the necessary legislation in this House, it should be possible to bring into effect changes approved by Parliament as soon as they become law.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister without Portfolio, supported by my right hon. Friends and myself, published yesterday the White Paper, "Lifting the Burden". That set out clearly the Government's determination to reduce burdens on business and to seek in every way to improve the prospects for jobs. This statement today of a major package of reforms is directed to precisely those objectives, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Prescott: It is both deplorable and ironic that two statements made to the House today should involve the ever-increasing greed of some of the City wealthy within our society and wages councils. The statement on wages councils represents an unashamed renunciation of Britain's international obligation to maintain minimum protection for the lowest paid in Britain, of whom I have employment experience.
Why does the Secretary of State disagree with the conclusions drawn by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), who, as we are aware from a leaked Cabinet document from 1982, bitterly opposed such mean measures because they would marginally increase the number of jobs at the expense of adult workers and would be portrayed as an attack on those who are particularly vulnerable?
Does the Secretary of State accept that Britain is the only one of 92 civilised countries which is now prepared to renounce its international obligations? The Government's renunciation of the fair wages resolution in 1983, as the evidence presented to the Select Committee on Employment showed, led to a 25 per cent. reduction in wages, holidays and conditions and fewer jobs. Does he accept that some protection is necessary to guarantee minimum holiday periods and paid weekend overtime, as the all-party committee on Sunday shopping recommended that those conditions should be an essential part of any implementation of Sunday shopping? How will these proposals affect that recommendation?
328
In his statement, the Secretary of State claimed that his proposals would increase jobs. What evidence does he have to support that statement, as he confirmed to the Select Committee only a month ago that he had no such evidence?
As the Secretary of State must know, many of the 2·75 million people covered by the wages councils are women in very low-paid jobs, often earning sums below the supplementary benefit level. What estimate has he of the increase in the family income supplement benefits, which will grow with the downward pressure on wages that the decision is designed to achieve?
In International Youth Year, the Government's contribution is to remove legislation that is covered by international convention. It will mean less pay, shorter holidays and greater exploitation of youth labour by funnelling YTS youngsters into lower-paid industries. It will reduce the unemployment figures by replacing them with low-paid women workers, who will not be eligible to register as unemployed. It is a squalid proposal, consistent with the Government's overall policy of making the wealthy wealthier and the poor poorer, and there is no evidence that it will produce extra jobs.
Mr. King: In his opening comment, the hon. Member complained about a leak from my Department. He then boasted of another leak. I object to all leaks from my Department.
Anyone who has begun to understand the operation of the wages councils will know of the complexity of the orders. They are a major burden on employers. Many of the problems of the present system—and what are alleged to be breaches of it—arise from the sheer complexity of the orders.
We are determined to encourage employers to give the best possible opportunity to young people. We believe that the proposal will help in the employment of young people. That is why we attach importance to it.
Sir Ian Gilmour: Although I believe that the wages councils are marginal to the problem of unemployment, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proceeding by way of a sensible improvement of the wages councils, rather than by way of abolition, which would have been a grave mistake.
Mr. King: I note what my right hon. Friend says and I understand his point. I believe that our package of proposals is a sensible way to proceed. We attach the highest importance to the creation of new jobs. I may disagree with my right hon. Friend as to the extent to which our proposals may help to reduce unemployment.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware that the removal of young people from the protection of wages councils is based on prejudice, not evidence? Youth wages have declined markedly, both relative to those of adults and absolutely, since 1979, yet youth unemployment has risen disproportionately faster.
Does the Secretary of State know that the young workers scheme—a device to lower youth wages—was singularly ineffective in providing new jobs? Does he realise that, if there is an increase in the employment of young people because of their cheapness, it will be at the expense of adults? Does he realise that that will be additional evidence to young people that the Conservative party is their enemy?
Mr. King: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last point.
There is clear evidence that, if the wages of young people were more sensibly related in percentage terms to the adult rate—as they are, for example, in West Germany—a number of additional jobs would be created. At the moment, it is impossible in many areas for employers to employ young people of 16 and 17 at 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the full adult wage rate. In West Germany, the percentage of the adult wage may be between 15 and 25. My concern is to see the creation of openings and opportunities for young people. When their wages are artificially high, it simply ensures that there are no jobs for them.
Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend agree that in many respects over the years the wages councils have outlived their purpose? Indeed, they have inhibited new employment and the creation of more wealth.
It is acceptable that young people under 21 should be exempt from the wages councils, but will my right hon. Friend keep under constant review the effect of the revised wages councils provisions on those over 21, and if necessary increase the age limit?
Mr. King: I give an undertaking that we shall keep these matters under review. The modification or abolition of individual wages councils is an important component in my proposals.
My hon. Friend will have noted my comment that the majority of employers within the wages council areas favour reform. Account should be taken of that fact.
Mr. David Penhaligon: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while many may recognise that there is some logic in paying the adult rate at 21 rather than at 18 or 19, the removal of all protection from those under 21 will be seen as outrageous? It will permit exploitation of one of the most vulnerable sections of our society. The whole concept of wages councils was to protect the vulnerable.
Given what is proposed by the Secretary of State, will he say why it was decided to deratify? As I understand international labour convention No. 26, the Government could probably stay within it, even given the proposed changes in the wages councils. What does the Minister see as the advantages of deratification, other than being able to abolish the lot at a later date?
Mr. King: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a slightly bizarre feature of the ILO procedure. He said that the changes would "probably" come within the convention. Obviously, we have to ensure that we act entirely in accordance with our international obligation.
Under the ILO system, one has either to give notice now, while the window is open for a year, or for five years one has no opportunity to make any change whatever. In an area that is important for domestic policy-making, it is essential that we should have the opportunity to determine the policy ourselves.
The greatest area of vulnerability for those under 21 is unemployment. I am putting forward proposals to give them the best possible chance of jobs.
Sir Peter Hordern: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward the proposals. Do they include the agricultural wages council? What is to become of that council?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend is referring to the agricultural wages board, which is dealt with under a separate convention. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already made a separate statement about that.
Mr. Frank Field: Is the Secretary of State aware that thousands of my constituents will regard the Government's statement as offering them a prospect of poverty on benefit or poverty on low wages?
Will the Secretary of State come with me to Merseyside jobcentres, where he will see jobs advertised at £1·20 an hour, £1 an hour, £57.25 a week, and some at princely sums of £70 and £91 a week?
Will the Secretary of State now withdraw his policy of trying to reduce money wages, and for the first time as a Government spokesman bring proposals to the House aimed at raising real wages?
Mr. King: I was on Merseyside on Friday, as the hon. Member may know. His point refers to the present situation. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that my proposals will change it in a significant way.
Mr. George Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will support his proposals, not because they appear to be a compromise—which is no doubt how they will be represented in the press—but because they satisfy the two main concerns at the forefront of our minds, jobs for the young and protection of workers where that is most needed?
Mr. King: I believe that that is right. I believe that small businesses have the potential to be and will increasingly be the source of more jobs. The burden of cost and compliance with the regulations is a major constraint on further employment, and that is the issue to which we give the highest priority.
Mr. Don Dixon: Does the Secretary of State realise that his proposals will not create one job, and that many unscrupulous employers will sack those over 21 and replace them with youngsters under 21 at lower wages?
Is it not ironic that the Secretary of State for Employment should make a statement attacking those at the bottom of the wage scale when his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has just made a statement about the fiddlers at the top?
Mr. King: I do not agree with the first comment of the hon. Member. This measure will mean the creation of more jobs. A number of cases are being reported to my Department about young people being dismissed because they have been offered jobs that they are willing to accept at wages which the employer can afford. Inspectors are then saying, "You are not allowed to accept that job." I can recount those instances to the hon. Member. That is an intolerable situation and one which this House should not countenance.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all comfortable and respectable opinion will congratulate him on his statesmanlike fudge? The only people who will regret his decision are the weakest and the poorest, who will continue to be priced out of work until these councils are abolished.
Mr. King: I note the characteristic question of my hon. Friend. This will be of real help to young people in giving

331
them a better chance of avoiding the ultimate degradation of unemployment. It will give them the chance of jobs, and I attach great importance to that.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: What protection can the Secretary of State offer if, as has been said, a person's 21st birthday becomes the date of his sacking? Is the only redress a young person will have on his 21st birthday the unfair dismissals legislation? If that situation comes about, will the Secretary of State review the policy he is pursuing today?
Mr. King: I do not accept the scenario painted by the right hon. Member. He knows the situation which exists now and knows very well that in this country young people's wages have got out of phase. The evidence I am about to give may be obtained from the Electrical Contractors' Association and the EETPU. An agreement there reduced the wages of first-year apprentices from £42 to £28. As a result, the number of apprentices in that industry trebled.
Mr. John Gorst: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proceeding by way of reform rather than abolition. Could he give an assurance that, if abuses or hardships are brought to his notice, he will act swiftly to deal with them?
Mr. King: As instanced by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) there are problems in the present situation. We wish to ensure that we have a system in which employers recognise their responsibilities, and in which we create the maximum number of jobs at wages which employers can afford and which employees are willing to accept. That is our objective in tackling the problems of unemployment. We will obviously keep a close eye on the situation as it develops.
Mr. Ken Eastham: Is it not a fact that poverty wages have a direct effect on people's life cycle? The Minister referred to apprentices' rates of pay, but that has nothing to do with wages councils. The rates are negotiated with the trade unions. On occasion, the Minister has quoted the United States of America as not having wages councils, but is it not a fact that the United States has a minimum wage, which is higher than that recommended in the United Kingdom?
Mr. King: I used the illustration of apprentices because it is the clearest possible illustration of the principle. I know perfectly well that apprentices are not covered by wages councils. I am seeking to make the point that, when the wages of young people are fixed at an economic level, it is likely to lead to more jobs. The hon. Member referred to the problems of poverty. The question from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was about state support, for instance in the form of family income supplement. What we must not do is confuse the two issues.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): Is it not clear from the comments of Opposition spokesmen, both official and alliance, that they recognise that these measures will help young people price themselves into jobs? Is it not also clear, and will my right hon. Friend confirm, that the recommendations of the Auld report on the deregulation of Sunday trading, are still available as an option?
Mr. King: The Auld report made recommendations about the retention of wages councils and about the setting of minimum wages. Those matters will need to be considered in whatever legislation comes before this House. I am surprised that the Opposition do not accept what is now widely perceived, that wage rates for young people—even though they have fallen back, as the hon. Member fairly said—are still significantly higher than, for instance, in Germany. It is interesting to note the much higher level of youth employment in Germany as a result.
Mr. Kevin Barron: In answer to a question put by me on 11 June 1985, asking whether the Department was thinking of attacking the minimum wages paid to people under 21 years of age, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), said no. Can the Minister tell us why his Department has changed its mind in that time, as I suggest it has? The Minister misquoted an agreement with the Electrical Contractors Association about trainees, but that has nothing to do with wages council industries. What evidence does he have that cutting this vital protection for people under 21 will help? In most of the areas we are talking about, people work for £1 an hour; we are not talking about anything lavish. What evidence can the Minister give us that he is going to do anything other than attack low wages and bring them down to YTS levels? I am sure that that is the thinking of this Government.
Mr. King: I am sorry that the hon. Member will not accept the clear illustration I gave. He probably knows, for example, that Ford apprentices in this country are paid twice as much in their first year as Ford apprentices in Germany. There are many more apprentices in Germany. The principle is that an employer fixes wage rates for starting people who in their first years of work make only a limited contribution to the performance of the business. He will not offer them employment if wage rates are fixed at a level way beyond what they are worth.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition that the reform of wages councils will create more jobs. Will he not accept that the abolition of wages councils would increase job opportunities even further? Will he not therefore go further than he is going today?
Mr. King: As I said a little earlier, we took the consultations very seriously. It was significant that a sizeable majority of employers preferred reform and preferred to keep the wages councils. It is important that young people should be exempted and we are also taking these alternative powers to deal with the problems of individual councils. However, we will keep the matter under review.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: How can the Minister seriously suggest that those over 21 need minimum wage protection while those under 21 are to have this protection abolished by law? Is the Minister aware that, in conventions on human rights, this nation is now the pariah of the 21 nations of the Council of Europe? If we depart much further from democracy, our right to be a member of the Council of Europe will be seriously challenged.
Mr. King: I do not know what on earth the hon. Member bases his last assertion on. We are not proposing to introduce universal rights for all those over 21. We have

333
consulted all the industries covered by wages councils, and they favour reform. There is an urgent need in the case of young people, and we intend to look individually at the other councils.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the thoroughgoing reform which he has announced, and for refusing to be swayed by the unimaginative and heartless advocates of the Opposition. Does he agree that it is quite wrong to present an issue in terms of the withdrawal of protection for young people, when the reality is that wages councils have all too often laid down minimum rates of pay for young and inexperienced people at levels above those which employers can afford? That has been one of the causes of the present serious problem of unemployment.
Mr. King: I suspect that I am not the only Conservative Member who is nauseated by those who preach about the problems of unemployment but will not face up to some of the tough decisions that must be taken, and do not realise what is really happening. I hope that when we see the improvements that will be made by this measure, even some Opposition Members will recognise its merits.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: How many of the industrialised countries with which we are in competition have found it necessary to denounce ILO convention No. 26? If we are out of line, is it because the Government's policy on minimum wages has failed, or because their policy on the employment of the young has failed?
Mr. King: As the hon. Member may know, the ratification of ILO conventions is extremely complex. Several countries ratify very few. The United States, because of its federal structure, has ratified few, if any. We have ratified rather more since we came into office, and have deratified only two. Labour Governments deratified ILO conventions. We shall consider them practically and pragmatically.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many will conclude that the Government have found exactly the right balance between protecting the interests of the weak and lower paid and ensuring that wages councils do not inhibit the creation of new jobs? Does he further agree that it is right to take younger people out of the remit of wages councils, since in this area they have inhibited the creation of new jobs by setting too high wages? It is right to set simple, single adult rates, because wages council orders are far too complex—often running to 30 pages—for employers or employees to understand, and are thus self-defeating. Many will conclude that, after the widest possible consultations, the Government have come to the most sensible conclusion.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know of his close interest in the subject and the work that he has done. I hope that the drastic simplification of the operation of wages councils—previous studies of orders show how complex they have become, especially for smaller employers—will assist in the creation of new jobs.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in commending wages council legislation to the House, Winston Churchill made the fundamental point that the good employer is undercut by the bad employer and that the bad employer is undercut by the worst employer? That was why wages councils
334
were needed. What evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have to show that Winston Churchill's recommendations were wrong? Does the Secretary of State want youngsters to be employed only by the worst employers?
Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman had made more than a superficial study of the position, he would have known that Winston Churchill set up trade boards, which were mostly concerned with health and safety. They are now covered in separate legislation. The trade boards dealt mainly with manufacturing industry, whereas the wages councils cover mainly hotels and catering, the retail trades and part-time workers, including many women. The Government at that time were anxious to prevent sweating, as it is called, which is now covered by separate legislation. It is a different matter.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Minister let us know the total number of young people who will be affected by the measures? Will he also remember that many shop workers, who are still not covered by wages councils, are young? What protection will he give to them? The Minister talked about sweatshops. In Ogmore, 8,000 people are unemployed, 1,000 of whom are youngsters aged under 21. What protection will he give to those who are working in the sweatshops that are mushrooming in my constituency and in Wales generally?
Mr. King: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that they were unemployed, but I may have missed the point. Obviously, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figure. We believe that the measures will lead to increased job opportunities for youngsters, but it is impossible to predict how many will be affected.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: In welcoming these partial steps, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remember, when considering each industry, the advantages of abolition, especially for 20-year-olds, who might celebrate their 21st birthdays by getting the sack?
Mr. King: I understand my hon. Friend's point but, considering the earnings in those areas, I hope that that will not be the case. The new measures will help to avoid the obvious anomalies, where employers who wish to employ more young people cannot do so because they are required, for example, to pay a 16-year-old who has never worked 50 per cent. of the full adult rate. That cannot be justified, and we must tackle the problem.
Mr. Michael Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman is content to lower standards and wages., especially for the young, does he believe that it is a good idea for other countries to follow our example? Does he not understand why those conventions were signed? Is it not disgraceful that Britain should be at the head of a drive to lower standards?
Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman has heard all the exchanges on this matter, yet he appears to have paid no attention to the points that have been made. How can it be a positive benefit to any youngster to fix wages, in relation to adult rates, at twice the rate paid in Germany, if the result is that British youngsters are unemployed while German youngsters have jobs?
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has received many representations from industries involved with wages councils advocating

335
their retention, but the removal of the damaging side effects that have built up? Is he aware that the skilful balance of measures that he has announced this afternoon will be widely welcomed by those who are genuinely concerned about job creation and increased training prospects for the young, although it will not be welcomed by those who weep crocodile tears and have no constructive alternatives to suggest?
Mr. Prescott: Twenty pounds a week—that is what it means.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who put the point better than I have succeeded in doing so far. I genuinely believe that we can help young people in this way. There is no merit in artificially preserving rates of pay which ensure that no one obtains employment.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this a matter of great interest to the House, but we have a heavy day ahead of us. I shall allow questions to continue for 10 minutes, and I hope that everyone can be called.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: As a former trade union officer, I know that many people in the catering trade work long hours, and that many youngsters in that trade are mentally and sometimes physically handicapped. They know nothing but hard work, and they are entitled to the protection of the Government. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to ensure that such youngsters are not exploited?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point about handicapped people, which no doubt will arise when we discuss the legislation.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that wages councils discriminate against the handicapped, ethnic minorities and young people, and that his proposals will be a fillip for them? Does he agree that the Opposition have shown that they can offer nothing to the young unemployed, and that they are happier to respond to the needs of their bosses in the trade unions than to tackle these fundamental problems?
Mr. King: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), who is an experienced trade union official, will know that there is a real problem here, which we must consider. The operation of wages councils can inhibit the employment of disadvantaged people who, above all, want the respect and responsibility that comes from employment.
Mr. Greville Janner: While recognising that the Government's proposals are part of the continuing process designed to strip those who are fortunate enough still to have jobs of basic minimum legal protection, may I invite the Minister to set out his proposals for the next stage in the process? Since he has decided to simplify the method of introducing regulations to abolish wages councils, thereby depriving the House of its normal procedures, and following the quadrupling of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection, can he say which councils he intends to abolish? Or will he not tell the House even that?
Mr. King: The hon. and learned Member, with his expert legal knowledge, has raised a number of points
336
which will arise if legislation comes before the House, as I certainly hope it will, and which we shall need to debate. My concern today was to set out the main framework at the earliest opportunity, as I promised the House I would. That I have done. I do not wish to pursue further the line which the hon. and learned Gentleman invites me to travel.
Mr. Conal Gregory: Does my right hon. Friend share my incredulity at the comments made by the Opposition in connection with a number of the councils such as the ostrich and fancy feather and artificial flower council, and the need for them? May I draw to his attention the fact that the Dutch Government introduced the young person's level of 23 and that, by considering reform along those lines, we will increase Britain's greatest growth industry, tourism? There will be delight, particularly in tourism circles in Yorkshire, that, as a result of these measures, some 60,000 to 70,000 jobs a year will be created.
Mr. King: I certainly accept what I think is a very important point. If we are considering future sources of employment, the scope for tourism is very significant. I hope that we may soon have something more to say on this.
The age level is obviously a matter of judgment. I took the view, after full consideration, that 21 was the right age. I have no doubt that that matter will be debated fully when we come to consider the legislation.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Given that the Government's case depends on their argument that low wages will produce more jobs for young people, can the Secretary of State explain why the highest levels of unemployment for young people are found in those regions with the lowest wage rates for young people and the lowest levels of unemployment for young people are found in those areas with the highest wage rates for young people?
Mr. King: A number of other factors—not least the concentration of traditional industries and the scale of problems which have affected some of those industries—also dominate those issues.
Mr. Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend's announcement today will be widely welcomed, because it will create many new job opportunities for young people. It will give young people the freedom to negotiate their own wages. I wonder why my right hon. Friend is denying this freedom to those who are over 21 and whether, in the light of the White Paper issued yesterday, he will consider excluding from the provisions of the wages councils all those employed by small businesses.
Mr. King: I understand that point. I think that the balance which I have tried to strike is the right one, and I commend it to the House. But I have no doubt that all these issues of detail will be a matter for discussion in the progress of the legislation.
Mr. Max Madden: Why do the Secretary of State and his Government seem to regard being young as an illness? Does the Secretary of State understand that he is going to have a very tough time persuading young people that he is doing them a good turn by cutting their pay and reducing their conditions of employment?
Mr. King: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to defend the system when he knows perfectly well that, by historical accident and sometimes by negotiation, wage rates for a number of young people are fixed at levels which simply are not economic and at which, therefore, there are not jobs. I will recommend as firmly as I can a system that will give encouragement to jobs and will give the best possible oppotunities to young people by employers being able to offer them employment. At the start of their working life, when they are not able to make a significant contribution to the firm, employers are willing to give them a chance, provided that the level of pay is one which a company can afford.
Mr. Matthew Parris: How is it possible for the Opposition to argue that abroad low wages create jobs because they give foreign manufacturers the edge over ours, yet those mechanisms do not apply at home?
Ms. Clare Short: We have low wages.
Mr. King: The truth is that, as the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) says, we have low wages and low productivity and we then jack up the wages of young people in a quite unreal relationship to the wages of adults. As a result, we tend to have the worst of all worlds. It is to amend that situation that I bring these proposals to the House.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the the northern region high unemployment and low wages go hand in hand, and that, since 1979, unemployment has doubled in the manufacturing sector, with 250,000 able-bodied men and women on the dole? In addition, 440,000 workers are on less than the decency threshold which was worked out by the Council of Europe. Is he aware that in my constituency there is one street in which 90 per cent. of the people are unemployed? Can he tell the House where in his announcement today there is any message of hope, expectation or a lifting of morale for those people?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have taken a number of measures, concerned with improving training opportunities, work programmes for the unemployed and the help which we can give them in a range of different ways. We are determined to take every step which may help to open more employment opportunities. We are starting now to create more jobs, but not fast enough to bite into the levels of unemployment. However, we are on our way, and we will continue to take steps which will genuinely help employment opportunities. I know that the hon. Gentleman comes from a difficult area which has tragic problems, but we will face up to those problems and we will take the steps which we genuinely believe can help.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: May I join those who welcome the policy of reform rather than of abolition? However, are we right to choose some arbitrary age to distinguish between adults, skilled and otherwise? I am concerned about late entrants into an industry. It might be far better for an industry to be able to have a say in defining what is adult—for example, after three or four years of experience in an industry. That may be of greater practical significance than choosing the age of 21 or even 23.
Mr. King: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I respect his close knowledge of one of the industries concerned in this area. It is, of course, important for the House to keep in mind that what we are talking about here is simply the minimum rate. It is open to industries to make alternative arrangements within that framework. It is the basic flaw in the situation with which we are concerned.
Ms. Clare Short: Is the Minister aware that we on the Labour Benches are nauseated by Tory Members with two or three jobs, earning £25,000 a year plus, talking about cutting the pay of young people who earn £35 a week and adult workers who earn between £63 and £75, many of them working for supplementary benefit rates? The Minister is not entirely honest with the House. His party has for a long time been determined to cut the wages of young workers. The Government therefore introduced a scheme called the young workers scheme, whereby they subsidised employers at the rate of £15 per week to cut young people's wages. The scheme failed completely, and is about to be abolished. A report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts found that 77 per cent. of the subsidised jobs would have existed anyway, and the vast bulk of the other jobs were jobs taken from adults. The Minister knows that cutting youth wages will not create more jobs.
The House should also note that, although the brunt of the attack is on young people, there is also an attack on low-paid adult workers. That means mostly women and black workers. The provisions to pay only for a single hourly rate and one rate of overtime result in no protection for holidays, no protection for piece-rate workers and no minimum rate, so that a worker can be sent home any day of the week if there is not enough work. The attack is upon all the protections of some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society. The Government are inspired by a future in which Britain will compete with some of the cheapest lowest paying sweatshops of the world The Opposition believe in a high-wage, high-skill, high-investment economy. We reject this statement, on the grounds of social justice and economic efficiency.
Mr. King: The hon. Lady says that she believes in all those things. A better recipe than her approach for destroying more jobs more quickly it is difficult to imagine. How can she make these accusations and allegations when she knows perfectly well that I have already referred to the relationship with Germany? Why is it that in Germany it is not thought unacceptable to have sensible and economic levels for young people? That economy is not seen as a low-wage, low-tech, low-skill economy; it is seen as a sensible way to get young people in with a better chance of training and a better chance of a job. That is what we are embarked upon. The distortions and allegations which she makes have no part in our programme.
Later—
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Employment, the Opposition shadow employment spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), raised a point of order with you about the statement being made in the House before being given prominence elsewhere. Is it not extraordinary that, after raising that

339
point of order, the hon. Gentleman did not have the courtesy to listen to the remainder of my right hon. Friend's statement?
Mr. Speaker: That is patently not a matter for me.

Civil Servants (Assistance to Members)
4.59 pm
Mr. Donald Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the debate on the Welsh rate support grant last evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker the fact that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) was seen to be obtaining information from the civil servants box at the back of the Chamber, although that hon. Gentleman is neither a Minister nor a Parliamentary Private Secretary.
At that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled, quite properly, that it was not a matter for his concern because the people in the officials' box were outside the Chamber. We accepted his ruling, although it was clear that an attempt had been made by the hon. Member concerned to seek privileges over other hon. Members. May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to the propriety of the hon. Gentleman's action?
Mr. Speaker: I am aware of the incident that was raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker last night. and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) for giving me notice of his intention to raise it today, because that has enabled me to look into it with great care. Departmental officials are admitted to the box behind the Chair so as to be available to Ministers.
Mr. Ray Powell: It was I who raised the point of order last night, when Mr. Deputy Speaker informed me that there had been no infringement of the rules of the House. It was obvious that civil servants in the box were giving documents to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best).
I understand that that hon. Member was informed that this point of order would be raised, and I appreciate that his absence may mean that he is engaged elsewhere. The fact that he has been informed means that my hon. Friends and I are not raising the matter without his knowledge.
When I approached the officials' box—as I told Mr. Deputy Speaker that I would—to ask for some information that I wanted regarding the situation in the Ogmore constituency and in Mid-Glamorgan, I was handed a copy of the supplementary rate support grant report which I already had, and the officials would not furnish me with any other information. They told me that they were available to give information to hon. Members other than Government Back-Benchers. If that information is correct and we can all approach the box for information, I need not have raised the point of order in the way I did last night, and I would not be raising the issue again today. However, I take it that the ruling is that the officials in the box are available only to advise Ministers.
Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to add to what I have said. It is a question for Ministers and not for the Chair.

Social Security
5.3 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are no doubt aware, authoritative information has been made public today, based on leaked documents, giving the numbers of gainers and losers under the social security Green Paper and the amounts of their gains and losses, largely losses. It shows that the number of losers is in excess of 8 million, including 600,000 of the poorest on supplementary benefit, and that their total losses are about £1 billion.
Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have repeatedly said that the information is not available now, before the April 1987 uprating. These documents, which have been seen and copied, reveal that Ministers have repeatedly misled the House.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, use your good offices to ensure that a statement is made at the earliest opportunity by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, so that hon. Members in all parts of the House may have an opportunity to question him on essential information the existence of which he cannot deny and which should have been made available at the outset, when he made his original statement on 3 June?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is raising matters which are for Ministers and not for the Chair. It is not for me to call Ministers to make statements. That is a matter for the usual channels.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was not asking you to force Ministers to make statements. He was pointing out that until now the House has been misled by being told by, among others, the Prime Minister that the information was not available. He was—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Nor is that a matter for me. It is for the Government.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have consistently denied the existence of documents relating to the cost of the social security reviews. Proof has now emerged that such documents exist. Is it not incumbent on the Government to present those documents to the House in the normal way in the form of a statement?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for them, not for me.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have a requirement in the House that no hon. Member is allowed to accuse another hon. Member of lying, and it is proper that we should have that arrangement. However, it poses problems for hon. Members who wish to comply with that reasonable proposition when there is a clear case, as in this instance, the occupants of the Government Front Bench, including the Prime Minister, have been less than honest with the House of Commons. How are we to pursue these matters when it is clear that we cannot make the accusation, yet the accusation would be absolutely valid?
Mr. Speaker: There are plenty of opportunities at Question Time and at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) has touched on an important point. You say that there are plenty of opportunities when hon. Members can raise issues such as this, Mr. Speaker, but we shall go into recess in a week's time and will not return until the end of October. Apparently the information is available. The Government have refused to present it to the House and have actually denied its existence. May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that a statement will be made before we rise for the summer recess?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): No assurance can be given, but I suggest that we might look at the matter through the usual channels.

Racial Harassment
5.7 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create an offence of racial harassment; to place a duty on a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant who is convicted of such offence if it is committed against another tenant of that landlord; to provide for the right of appeal against eviction and against proposals for rehousing; to place a duty on landlords and local authorities to provide information on the rights and duties in relation to racial harassment; to make provision for investigation of complaints and for a code of practice; and to make provision for compensation of victims.
This important legislative step is designed to tackle the problem of racial attacks in and around people's homes. The need for such legislation is highlighted by the tragic deaths in Ilford last Saturday, when Mrs. Shamira Kassam, who was eight months pregnant, and her three small children died in an arson attack on her home. The evidence strongly points to racial motivation. Petrol was poured through the letter box—
Mr. Neil Thorne rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Cohen: Petrol was poured through the letter box three weeks earlier; there was an attack on the same property three years previously, when it was occupied by a different Asian family; and across the road, done by a Fascist organisation, was obnoxious, racist graffiti. Under my Bill, the police would have been under a statutory duty to investigate the previous arson attacks and the incident of the graffiti as racially motivated crimes.
These horrendous and needless murders, to society's shame, cannot be treated as an isolated incident. There has been a steady increase in the number and intensity of incidents of racial harassment. Sir Kenneth Newman, in his June report about the situation in London, pointed out that the number of reported cases of racist attacks went up by over 18 per cent. in 1984, whereas the crime rate generally went up by 9 per cent. We know, moreover, that many cases are not reported to the police, either for lack of confidence in the police or for fear of reprisals.
Most of the victims are Asian of Afro-Caribbean. The official Home Office report of 1981 found that the incidence of racial victimisation of Asians was 50 times higher than for white people, and for Afro-Caribbeans it was 36 times higher. The Policy Studies Institute's report, "Black and White Britain, 1984", considered that the Home Office may have underestimated the incidence of racial attacks by as much as 10 times.
Police perception of and reaction to these attacks is mixed. There is an inconsistency in their recognition of the racial motivation for such crimes and in the speed and type of their response to them. For example, they often exhibit scepticism and even hostility to the victims. They arrive late at the scene of the crime and end up simply advising victims to pursue private prosecutions.
However, there is a slow realisation of the extent of the problem. Mr. Robert Bunyard, chief constable of Essex, is quoted in The Times on 7 June 1985 as saying:
"ethnic minorities live in dread."
The police, media and politicians may have been wrong to dismiss such problems and people's fears as trivial when they are not. Sir Kenneth Newman has formally stated that racial attacks will be one of his prime priority targets for 1985. He has said:
344
"Reducing the numbers will not be easily achieved, nor will it be won by the efforts of the police alone."
That, by implication, advocates tighter law and the need for clearer duties on the police in these cases. My Bill will provide just that.
However, the Bill also imposes duties upon local authorities, as it is also, in part, a housing Bill. There is a tentative policy to deal with the perpetrators of racial harassment in a few local authorities—Newham and the GLC should be praised—but it is a piecemeal and unco-ordinated approach in the absence of effective legislative backing. There is a poor record of co-ordination between local authorities and the police in dealing with cases of racial harassment. That has resulted in a hotchpotch of responses, instead of clear guidelines embodied in statutory responsibilities.
Specifically, my Bill will put on the statute book for the first time the crime of racial harassment—a racially motivated crime by a member of one racial or ethnic group against a member of a different racial or ethnic group. Racial harassment denies one the right to peace and comfort in one's home and reduces the quality of life. It can mean that the person affected fears for his safety.
The Bill includes a schedule that delineates such acts. They include unprovoked assault—including actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm—damage to property—including breaking windows, doors or fences—the writing of racial slogans or graffiti, arson or attempted arson or damage to a building used by a racial or ethnic group, including places of worship and cemeteries.
The Bill also lays down police procedures for the conduct of investigations, the maintenance of records and the publishing of findings. It lays duties on all landlords and local authorities to inform their tenants and ratepayers of the offence and its consequences. Connivance or neglect by an officer of a body corporate, which can be the police, a local authority or a company landlord, in dealing with a case of racial harassment is also an offence. An injunction can be sought to stop any further acts of harassment occurring, and stiff fines and/or imprisonment are introduced upon conviction.
In severe cases, the Bill provides grounds for the eviction of perpetrators. They include the possibility of a compulsory purchase order being instituted against a convicted racist owner-occupier, subject to the acceptance of the Secretary of State. A convicted racist tenant who is subject to eviction cannot subsequently be rehoused in accommodation of a superior standard.
Consideration of the provisions of the Bill answers the criticisms of those who casually suggest that no new laws are needed. I was disappointed by the response of the Prime Minister yesterday to my question. The right hon. Lady expressed personal sympathy about the Ilford murders, but she was not prepared to make any effort to bring in legislation to combat this increasing form of violence.
Despite the Government's law and order stance, they want to leave the law out of their response to crimes of a specific racial nature. On the other hand, legislation against racial harassment is supported by the Labour party because it protects and defends our democracy. We cannot assume that a peaceful democracy exits in all sections of our community while many ethnic minority citizens live in fear and in a state of siege in their own homes.

345
We do not want to encourage vigilantes, but neither should we turn a blind eye when there is evidence of individual or organised Fascism perpetrated against ethnic minorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, has said:
"Victims suffer twice; they are attacked and then have to move home."
My hon. Friend is a sponsor of my Bill, and he has pledged that the next Labour Government will strengthen the law and help the victims of racial harassment. I am proud to have pioneered the way for future legislation against racial harassment.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Dr. John Cunningham, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Ernie Roberts, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, and Mr. Greville Janner.

RACIAL HARASSMENT
Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to create an offence of racial harassment; to place a duty on a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant who is convicted of such offence if it is committed against another tenant of that landlord; to provide for the right of appeal against eviction and against proposals for rehousing; to place a duty on landlords and local authorities to provide information on the rights and duties in relation to racial harassment; to make provision for investigation of complaints and for a code of practice; and to make provision for compensation of victims: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 October and to be printed. [Bill 195.]
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you asked for the names of those who supported the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr.
346
Soames) and some of his colleagues near him saying that they were opposed to the Bill. Perhaps they may wish to clarify this, so that their view is clearly on record.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not say "No", nor did I hear any of my hon. Friends say "No".
Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) did say "No''. Not only that, but he was rude and objectionable the whole time that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was speaking. What is more, he conducts himself permanently as a proper lout.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We have gone far enough on this. I did not hear anyone challenge the declaration that I made on the vote on the Bill.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Crawley says that he did not say "No" when Labour Members clearly heard him do so. Is it not incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to come clean about whether he supports or opposes the Bill to outlaw racial harassment?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are all honourable Members. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has said that he did not make the remark that was attributed to him, and the House should accept that, in accordance with its usual practice.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) for the whole time that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was speaking, I can assure the House that my hon. Friend did not shout "No." and did not dissent in any way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already told the House that I accept the word of the hon. Member for Crawley, and I am sure that the House does.

Orders of the Day
  Administration of Justice Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 5

  PREPARATION OF PAPERS FOR PROBATE ETC. BY UNQUALIFIED PERSONS
  'For section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974 there shall be substituted—
  "(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), any unqualified person who, directly or indirectly, draws or prepares any paperson which to found or oppose—

  (a) a grant of probate, or

  (b) a grant of letters of administration,
  shall, unless he proves that the act was not done for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the first level on the standard scale.

  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a banister or duly certified notary public.
  (3) Subsection (1) also does not apply to any act done by a person at the direction and under the supervision of another person if—

  (a) that other person was at the time his employer, a partner of his employer or a fellow employee; and

  (b) the act could have been done by that other person for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward without committing an offence under this section.".'.—[The Attorney-General.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.18 pm
  The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 7—Probate work by qualified persons—
  '(1) Section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (restriction on persons acting in probate matters when not qualified to act as a solicitor) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(3) Subsection (1) also does not apply to any act done by a person who holds such qualifications as may be specified by the Lord Chancellor in an order made by statutory instrument under this section;
  (4) An order made by statutory instrument under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.
  Government amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 27.
  The Attorney-General: In Committee an amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to clarify the position of unqualified staff who undertake probate work at the direction and under the supervision of a solicitor. I undertook to table a Government amendment on Report to deal with the matter.
  The new clause puts beyond doubt the legality of unqualified staff preparing probate papers in those circumstances. As the concept of supervision is not apt for the taking of instruction, we have decided to abolish the statutory restriction in this respect so as to enable solicitors' employees to continue to take instruction in probate matters without the risk of committing an offence.
  348
  We have also taken the opportunity to modernise and improve the existing drafting of section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
  The other amendments provide for appropriate transitional arrangements, and consequential amendments to clause 8, which relates to incorporated practices.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

  JUDICIAL REVIEW
  'If leave for an application to the High Court for judicial review is refused, the court shall state its reasons.'.—[Sir B. Rhys Williams.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  My right hon. Friends and I have discussed new clause 1, and they know that I am interested in the subject for personal reasons. They also know that a significant body of well-informed people who observe the procedures of our courts believe that a change in the practice of the courts such as I am suggesting is highly desirable and ought immediately to come into effect.
  Private citizens have come increasingly to rely on the judicial review procedure to obtain justice. The application goes before a single judge, who assesses the merits of the case and decides whether the applicant is to be entitled to take his or her complaint to the High Court.
  Although not universal, I understand that it is normal for the single judge to make a ruling without stating reasons in court or in writing. That is wrong and should be changed immediately. In the event of the applicant being refused leave to take a case further, he and his legal advisers will have to make a difficult decision. For a private citizen, there is possibly the risk of futile but substantial expense if he decides to take his case further. There might be long delays before the outcome of the case is known and, during that time, he might lose chances to choose another solution which is available to him at once, but which might not be available if, in due course, his case comes to court.
  If the applicant is advised to take the issue up for judicial review and his case is rejected out of hand by a single judge, that is likely to shake his confidence in his legal advisers. He might wonder whether they have given him bad advice.
  A sense of resentment can be aroused if somebody who thinks that he has a fair case which ought to be heard is refused a hearing and no explanation is given. That is a type of resentment which British citizens ought never to feel about the operation of our courts. There ought never to be a suspicion that their case has not been considered adequately or that some factor which they do not understand, and which they could have overcome, has stood in their way when seeking justice. Justice should never be frustrated arbitrarily.
  I have not been through all the relevant cases to see how many times the single judge has refused an applicant who has afterwards been able to establish that he has a serious case to be heard, though I am sure that such evidence could be adduced. But my right hon. Friends should be willing to accept my proposed change of procedure irrespective of whether I can support my argument with such evidence.

  349
  If the judge is clear about his decision, he can express it without being exposed to a serious extra burden. I am not asking that he should make a substantial written explanation, but he must state his reasons. If the judge is not perfectly clear and does not wish to be embarrassed by having to explain himself, there could be genuine doubt about whether justice has been done. That could not be right.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will assure me that, if he does not like a new clause of one and a half lines appearing in the Administration of Justice Bill, the same effect will be achieved by another and, if he wishes, more appropriate route. I do not know how the Lord Chancellor would influence the practice of the single judge in the High Court, but, if the House is not to divide on the new clause, we are entitled to look to my right hon. and learned Friend to give a specific undertaking that the change required by my new clause will be made by another means.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has raised a serious and important issue. The use of applications for judicial review has greatly increased recently, especially since the changes in the procedure from the old prerogative writs to the use of what we now call the judicial review procedure under order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Judges at all levels have pushed back the borders of judicial review. They are increasingly prepared to consider cases where Government Departments, local authorities and other bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions have not operated a fair procedure and have not acted properly.
  Most applications for judicial review are made by aggrieved private citizens—many of them of limited means—who feel that important principles that affect their interests, and perhaps those of many others, have been attacked by the action of Government Departments or other bodies. I suspect that since applications for judicial review have become fashionable as a means of seeking judicial remedy, there have been many frivolous and unmeritorious applications. For those reasons, among others, the procedures relating to judicial review have been altered and sophisticated to enable applications with merit to be heard rather more quickly than before—there are still considerable and unacceptable delays, however—and applications with no merit to be disposed of rapidly and relatively informally.
  Judges have never been afraid, when called upon to do so, to give their reasons, if necessary stating that an application before the court, whatever the jurisdiction under consideration, lacks merit or is even frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the court's process. A long-standing tradition, inherent in the court through the operation of the common law, is the power to declare openly that a matter before the court falls within the categories of frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court's process. There is no question, therefore, of judges being put in an unpalatable position through having to give reasons in the situation postulated by the hon. Member for Kensington.
  Most important in this context is the fact that at the moment there is no Bill of Rights to deal with contemporary issues that affect daily life in this country. I believe that there ought to be a Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, neither the Government nor the Labour party has been prepared hitherto to accept the need to go
  350
  even to the extent of incorporating the European convention on human rights into our domestic law. Consequently, all that many citizens can do, in an effort to enforce what they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be their rights, is to make an application for a judicial review. The jurisdiction of the courts in England and Wales is both lacking and inadequate in that respect.
  One small way to ensure that such manifest feelings of injustice as can occur, did not arise would be to ensure that if an application is thrown out by the court, the applicant at least knows why. I hope that the Attorney-General will say that he accepts the principle that in such cases reasons should be given. If he is not prepared to accept that principle, I can assure him that the considerable pressure for fundamental changes to public law will become stronger.
  5.30 pm
  The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for raising this matter. I have a great deal of sympathy for it. I believe that I can give an assurance both to my hon. Friend and to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). The Government agree that reasons should always be given. If that does not happen in practice, we should be grateful if examples of difficulties could be sent either to the Lord Chancellor or to me. The Lord Chancellor will consult the judiciary and. if necessary, introduce appropriate rule changes under order 53, which has virtually created the new system of judicial review. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery described it as rolling back the frontiers. I prefer to say that it is advancing the frontiers. Whichever word one prefers, order 53 has created considerable changes which can only be in the interests of the general public. Therefore, I welcome them.
  The changes are entirely the result of the rules committee changing the rules. They have not been brought about by legislation. Therefore, the changes for which my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery have asked can be made by rules of court. Primary legislation is not the right way to go about it.
  Having heard my explanation, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington will withdraw his motion.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Can the Attorney-General say what time scale he has in mind for the consultations and for the introduction of these changes?
  The Attorney-General: I should like to be able to answer the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), but this new clause has been examined only recently. I have been one stage removed from it. However, my consultations earlier this afternoon with the Lord Chancellor have allowed me to give this assurance.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I should like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for what he has said. If the House were to divide on this new clause, the feelings of hon. Members would be quite clear. I hope that the rules committee will bear in mind the strength of feeling about this matter. Although this has been only a short debate, it

  351
  is nevertheless incumbent upon the Lord Chancellor, or the rules committee, to ensure that action is taken quickly and that what is contained in my new clause should be brought into effect by one means or another.
  In view of the assurance that I have been given, I shall not seek to divide the House this afternoon. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

  RESTRICTIONS ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN CONVEYANCING
  `No person or body corporate shall engage in the conveyancing of any property if they have a financial interest (other than their fee for conveyancing) in that transaction or any related transaction, including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the provision of loans for the purchase of that or of any related property or the earnings of fees or commissions from estate agency, mortgage or insurance broking; and any person in breach of the provisions of this Clause shall if he is a licensed conveyancer be guilty of an offence punishable by the Council in accordance with Schedule 4 of this Act and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale or, in the case of a solicitor, shall be regarded as in breach of the rules as to professional conduct under section 31 of the Solicitors Act 1974'.—[Mr. Butterfill.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. John Butterfill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I rise this afternoon to provoke, I hope, a discussion on the considerable conflicts of interest that could arise from the conveyancing provisions of the Bill. Many hon. Members who are in the Chamber today were members of the Standing Committee and they will be aware of the reservations that I expressed in Committee. I shall itemise some of the principal areas where I see conflicts arising, in the hope that I shall receive assurances from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
  The Bill proposes to take away the solicitors' monopoly on conveyancing and to permit a new class of licensed conveyancers. Those who are now engaged in all aspects of property transactions and property exchange may seek either to become licensed conveyancers or to employ licensed conveyancers. It is that aspect that gives rise to considerable concern.
  It is possible that many estate agents will be sufficiently qualified by the examination that they have taken to apply to be licensed conveyancers. Others may meet those criteria or may employ licensed conveyancers. I perceive great difficulties if estate agents were to be involved in both estate agency and conveyancing. Many property transactions form part of a chain. A long transaction may involve three, four or possibly five properties. An estate agent who is selling a property at the top of the chain for £150,000 and earning a commission of £3,000 or £4,000 might also be selling a property at the bottom of the chain for £30,000 and earning a commission of only £600 or £700.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem he is discussing has already arisen over the two solicitors' property centres which have now been opened? One solicitor with an interest in the property centre is acting for the vendor, another solicitor with an
  352
  interest in the property centre is acting for the purchaser, and both have an interest in the house being sold by the property centre. Already we can see the conflict of which we are afraid arising in something which has the support of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and I agree entirely with everything that he has said. Later in my speech, I propose to deal in detail with that aspect. An estate agent might have two commissions from property sales in a transaction. He might also be involved in conveyancing one or more of the properties in a chain of transactions. An estate agent who was due to earn many thousands of pounds from a chain of transactions, and who was also acting as a conveyancer, might be faced with a problem of title of one of the properties. There could be an irresistible temptation for him to fail to point out the problem or at least to gloss over it, in the hope that the chain would not collapse and cause him considerable financial loss. That risk should rule out the possibility of estate agents carrying out conveyancing.
  If solicitors are involved in conveyancing and the sale of properties, the same conflicts of interest will arise. Solicitors are already involved in the sale of houses and the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, says that there is nothing in the solicitors' practice rules to prevent them from carrying out what he calls "property sales work", which, apparently, has always been part of the work of a solicitor.
  Sir John uses the phrase "property sales work" to differentiate the work done by solicitors from that done by estate agents. That is a spurious interpretation, and I am sure that all hon. Members agree that if a solicitor advertises that he will sell a house, in addition to doing the conveyancing, he is, by any logical definition, involved in estate agency and, therefore, should be subject to the Estate Agents Act 1979 and any other regulations applying to conveyancing.
  It has been claimed that solicitors do not need to be subject to that Act because their practice rules and the Solicitors Act 1974 impose on them obligations which are much greater than those imposed by the Estate Agents Act. However, that is not so. Solicitors are not subject to the mandatory disclosure of interests of relatives, staff and relatives of staff that is imposed on estate agents under section 21 of the Estate Agents Act.
  Solicitors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Director General of Fair Trading, as are estate agents. Solicitors are not subject to the powers of entry and inspection under section 11 of the Estate Agents Act, and they do not have to give details of their remuneration and expenses before a transaction takes place, as is required under section 18 of the Act.
  Perhaps most important, although estate agents are required to account to their clients for interest on deposit moneys held for those clients, solicitors are not so required and may keep for themselves any interest earned. That is an important difference.
  Whatever comes out of the Bill, solicitors involved in estate agency or "property sales work" should be subject to the same rules as everybody else.
  Mortgage and insurance brokers may apply to become licensed conveyancers or may employ licensed conveyancers. They have an acute interest in property transactions.

  353
  They arrange mortgages for substantial commissions and life assurance endowment policies for substantial and continuing commissions on annual premiums.
  If those brokers are also involved in conveyancing, there will be a grave danger that the large commissions which they earn from their brokering work, which will be much larger than the fees earned from conveyancing, could impose an unacceptable conflict of interest on them. Like estate agents, they could be involved in chains and they could build up a bigger interest in completing the deal than in looking after the interests of their clients.
  5.45 pm
  Probably the greatest problem is posed by banks and building societies. If in-house conveyancers are permitted to act for both sides, all sorts of conflicts may arise for the banks and building societies. Many borrowers are required to place their building insurance with a company nominated by the bank or building society. Until recently, that insurance had to be placed with the one company nominated by the bank or building society.
  When I moved my mortgage from a bank to a building society, I was required to change my insurer, although he was a reputable underwriter at Lloyd's, and I had to accept one of the society's choosing. As a result, my premium almost doubled, and a substantial commission went to the building society.
  We have taken action in the House to require banks and building societies to give borrowers a choice of insurance companies. However, only three companies are nominated by banks and building societies, and those are chosen because they give the biggest commissions and not because they give borrowers the best bargain.
  If we are to allow banks and building societies to do conveyancing, will an in-house conveyancer be likely to tell a borrower that he could get a better rate of interest or a better deal by going somewhere else? It would be difficult for such a conveyancer to take a noble view that was contrary to his employer's interests.
  Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West): I declare an interest as an adviser to one of the major clearing banks. It may help my hon. Friend to know that the banks are not interested in going into the conveyancing business. They do not think that it is part of their business and they are not particularly interested.
  Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful for that assurance, but I strongly suspect that although that may apply to the clearing banks—though I doubt it, because they have gone into estate agency in other areas—I wonder whether it will apply to some of the secondary and tertiary banks and the loan sharks who inhabit this world. I have grave doubts about that.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My hon. Friend will know that Lloyds bank owns the very large Black Horse estate agency. The bank might not wish to engage in conveyancing direct, but there is no reason why it should not do so through the estate agency.
  Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend has anticipated something that I intended to say later, but I am grateful to him for reinforcing that point.
  Many banks earn substantial commissions by requiring borrowers to take out with a company nominated by the bank expensive life assurance to cover loans. The commission earned from that sort of business is very large and is bound to create conflicts.
  354
  Even more important is the mortgage deed—the terms of the loan—and how a borrower can be protected from the one-sided approach and lack of independent advice that would arise if the bank or building society were the sole arbiter for both parties. How would an in-house conveyancer advise a borrower if that borrower were made redundant or lost his job in some other way, and could no longer meet the payments? Under what circumstances could a lender evict a borrower, and what would be the rights of the borrower's wife and children regarding their occupation of the property? A court may grant an eviction order, and the bank or building society may be given the power of sale. What then happens if the lender controls an estate agency, such as the Black Horse agency or some of the estate agency chains set up by major building societies? Will the lender be able to sell the house through his in-house estate agency, raise the money, and get yet another commission from the entire transaction? If so, on what terms?
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: That depends on which estate agent conducts the sale. How does having the advice of an independent conveyancer at the start of the procedure safeguard against all those problems arising, such as a person losing his or her job?
  Mr. Butterfill: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. All those matters are contained in the mortgage deed—the terms of the loan—and are normally negotiated between the borrower and the lender through their solicitors or other advisers. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I have been in professional practice in this field for 25 years, and I have acted in innumerable disputes between lenders and borrowers of the type that I am now describing. I have also been involved in negotiating with all sorts of institutions on the terms of their mortgage deeds. I accept that many people do not take up these points, but they should. Perhaps some of them have not been properly advised in the past. The debate may bring to people's attention the fact that they should be properly advised, and if we do no more than that we shall have achieved something for the public good.
  If a borrower finds himself in financial difficulties, will he be permitted to take in lodgers to supplement his income? If he goes abroad, will he be allowed to let his house while he is away? Many mortgage deeds do not allow that, but after negotiations the lender often concedes that under certain circumstances that can be permitted. However, the concession is granted only be negotiation, and if the borrower asks. If one is not independently advised, will one ask? In the event of a dispute between the borrower and lender which may go to court, what provisions will be made for arbitration, and who will bear its cost? All such conditions are set out in the mortgage deed and need to be negotiated between two independent advisers, not imposed by one particular adviser.
  Those are only a few of the problems arising with banks and building societies. We may argue that those problems will not arise with our highly respectable building societies, such as the Halifax, the Woolwich, the Abbey National and others, but they will arise with other building societies. There have been considerable problems with the Grays building society, the management of which has not been all that it should be.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman realise, on the basis of the Which? survey and our knowledge of the world, that two thirds of house buyers approach a building society first? The same survey showed that only 11 per cent. sought advice from a solicitor about their mortgage. The hon. Gentleman is telling us that solicitors are qualified to give independent financial advice, which they are not, and that people are receiving that advice now, which they are not.
  Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Which? survey, but it was conducted among Which? readers, who tend to be better informed and who think that they can decide on these matters for themselves. The problem is that the general public, especially the young and inexperienced house-buyer, cannot so decide, and do not. The hon. Gentleman should study the Marplan survey, which, contrary to the Which? survey, showed that second-time buyers, as opposed to first-time buyers, recognise the grave need to have independent advice. That is precisely the point. People with experience of the system realise where they needed to be independently advised. Therefore, Marplan produced the opposite result to Which?
  Mr. Budgen: I wish to take up the point of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The fact that only 11 per cent. of people want financial advice and that conflicts of interest may occur in only 1 per cent. of cases, is like saying that only 1 per cent. of those convicted before the courts are wrongly convicted. Are we not trying to deal with a grave injustice which may occur at the margin?
  Mr. Butterfill: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the argument of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is bogus? The hon. Gentleman referred to the percentage of people who approach building societies first, but is not the crucial point the fact that they then see a solicitor before they are committed to taking out the loan with the building society?
  Mr. Butterfill: I agree with my hon. Friend. Most people, before they think about entering into a transaction, go to a bank or a building society to see whether they can borrow the money. After establishing that and finding the property, they go to their solicitor.
  Mr. Tony Favell: I wish to make the same point. Does my hon. Friend agree that, after going to a bank or a building society people have the benefit of independent advice from a solicitor before signing on the dotted line?
  Mr. Butterfill: Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. We may argue that conflicts will not arise with the highly respectable banks which we know and love, such as Barclays, Lloyds and the National Westminster, or even with financiers of undoubted probity, such as Julian Hodge and Bernie Cornfeld. However, we are also dealing with the denizens of the nether regions of the financial market—the loan sharks and tertiary banks, which impose conditions which many hon. Members would not even believe. We are legislating for those areas, in addition to the household names, whose conduct is not entirely beyond reproach.
  We are told that the Government will deal with all these problems by regulation; that the regulations, which are to
  356
  be published, but which, regrettably, we have not yet seen, will overcome all the difficulties which may or could arise. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for showing me a copy of a letter which the Lord Chancellor sent to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and one which the Prime Minister sent to the hon. Gentleman, confirming that the Government are resolute in their view that banks and building societies should not be allowed to act for both sides in the same transaction because of the problems that have arisen. I am reassured by my right hon. and learned Friend on that issue at least.
  I am less reassured on the prospective regulations, which cannot and will not apply to solicitors who are involved in estate agency. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to reassure me, that he will explain how he proposes to deal with the anomaly that may well arise if solicitors are permitted to continue to practice both conveyancing and estate agency, and that the Government will deal with all the problems that I have described. If they legislate for any extension of a conflict of interest which they may regard as being in the public interest—otherwise, it would be a restriction on trade—I hope that a warning will be issued similar to that which appears on cigarette packets. There should be a Government warning which states, "Entering into this transaction without taking independent advice could seriously damage your financial health".
  6 pm
  I see no difficulty in providing one-stop shopping, which is so dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and others. It can be provided by grouping businesses together under one roof. Why not have in one building a solicitor, an estate agent, a mortgage broker and even a building society? Perhaps they could all agree to charge a composite fee which would be lower than the sum of the parts. There could be agreed divisions of the fee of individual responsibility for those with whom they deal. If there is no individual responsibility, there will be temptations and conflicts of the sort that I have described.
  For example, if a building society conveyancer, in acting for both sides, were to behave inappropriately or negligently, that would give rise to an action for negligence on the part of his client. If he were an independent solicitor, how could the borrower sue? How could he sue the building society's own solicitor, when that solicitor or conveyancer could say, "I was acting for my principal client, my employer. I have no duty to you."? Where would the remedy be for the borrower in those circumstances?
  I hope that the Government will deal with all these matters when they come to address the regulations. I hope also that my right hon. and learned Friend will give an assurance that the regulations, when they are available, will be brought before the House for an affirmative resolution. The House must have the right to scrutinise. The matter cannot be left to the Lord Chancellor's discretion.
  If we do not get the protection for which I and many others are looking—we shall not know until we are able to study the regulations—I hope that the professions that are involved in property transactions will take the initiative themselves. I trust that the professions will come forward with a self-denying ordinance whereby they will say to their members—I include the Law Society, the new

  357
  Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which we are about to establish, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the National Association of Estate Agents and all the other bodies involved—"None of you should be involved in conveyancing if you have any other fee or commission arising out of the property transaction." Perhaps we can persuade the professions to produce a self-denying ordinance, instead of pursuing their own self-enrichment, and to act in the public interest for the protection of the public.
  Mr. Ken Weetch: The new clause should be opposed and defeated. The presence of a profusion of lawyers in the Chamber makes me certain that we are hearing the last gasp of the old restrictive practices system. The lawyers are making a last-ditch attempt on behalf of their entrenched professions to retain the old system by opposing radical and structural change.
  Mr. Butterfill rose—
  Mr. Weetch: No. I shall not give way at this stage.
  Mr. Butterfill: I wish to intervene on the very point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
  Mr. Weetch: I shall not give way at this stage.
  The professions are attempting to oppose changes in conveyancing. They wish to keep conveyancing in the dark ages, where it has been for 150 years, to the disadvantage of the consumer.
  When we talk about an issue in the House we are frequently, in reality, talking about something else. In this instance we are not really talking about conflicts of interest or anything similar. It is convenient for lawyers to advance the conflict of interest argument and to avoid other issues. It is a bogus argument and that can be said for much of the other stuff that we hear from the legal profession.
  The reality is that we are discussing economic matters. Who is to gain the major slice of the lucrative conveyancing market that arises from a society that is becoming more than ever a property-owning democracy? The Building Societies Association calculates that by the end of the century over 70 per cent. of the population will be owner-occupiers. These people will be more mobile and, therefore, the conveyancing market will be worth thousands of millions of pounds. It is not surprising that the legal profession is defending restrictive practices to the last ditch. It clearly considers it crucial that it should have the largest slice of the action. The argument over the new clause sets the scene.
  It is important to bear in mind the main objective of the conveyancing exercise. Our aim is to give the consumer as many options as possible. If someone wishes to buy a house, to buy and sell, to trade up or to buy for the first time, I want him to have the maximum number of options. If a firm of estate agents has an in-house department of licensed conveyancers, I do not see why the consumer should be prevented from using the agency. I should like him to have the option of a licensed conveyancer working for someone else or on his own account. The consumer should have access to a solicitor if that is what he wants. He should have access to the conveyancing department of a major bank if that is his wish. In other words, he should have all the options before him.
  The choice should extend beyond outlet to structure. The consumer should have the choice of a small firm, a medium-sized firm with corporate status or a large-scale
  358
  approach. He should be able to choose between a number of individual specialists working on their own and an in-house conveyancing service. The pattern of consumer demand to emerge will be for the market place to decide. Perhaps the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) will take that comment in the spirit in which it was intended. The structure should emerge according to the shape of supply and demand in the market place. I hope that that point goes home to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Although I initially had some reservations about conveyancing with respect to building societies—I have criticised the building societies in the House—I now believe, on balance, that the proposition should be supported. The Bill is a poor attempt to bring about more competition. In principle, it has widened the category of persons who can practise conveyancing but has loaded it down with such a lot of paraphernalia that the widening will not be great. In return, the monopoly has been tightened but extended to the contract for sale—previously untouched by the monopoly under section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974. In a fundamental sense the "monopoly" is more vicious and tightly functional than it has been for 150 years. If this is an exercise in more competition, it is a straightforward confidence trick. If building societies and banks are allowed to carry out conveyancing which is regulated properly by appropriate codes of practice, the scope of consumer choice will be widened.
  The burden of one argument is that there is a great potential for abuse if building societies and banks perform the conveyancing on a property. That possibility exists, but it does not logically follow that abuse is inevitable. It is possible to legislate against abuse. If it is argued that we cannot choose an option because of potential abuse, we shall never move forward. The right action is to take the advantages from a line of options, legislate against the abuses and ensure that they do not occur.
  Mr. Butterfill: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on a recent case involving a Lincolnshire solicitor whose wife runs an estate agency from adjoining premises? The Law Society has ruled that there is no conflict because the two businesses are in no way related.
  Mr. Weetch: I shall not comment on that case. An intervention in which an hon. Member puts a case to another hon. Member without giving supporting detail is not even a good beginning for consideration. If the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will send me all the supporting correspondence, I shall consider the matter. At this stage I cannot give a snap judgment on my feet about what is probably a complicated matter. I think that that is the consensus of the House. If that is the type of legal advice that comes forward in a snap judgment, I hope that it is the advice that would be used when I am being prosecuted and not when I am being defended.
  Building societies can offer substantial structural advantages in conveyancing. As large organisations, they can offer certain industrial-type advantages. Make no mistake—conveyancing is organised in the same way as the putting-out system was organised in the 18th century, and it has not altered since. It is still a matter of small workshops, which the managerial and technical revolutions have passed by. Conveyancing has been impeded by the monopoly that has been enshrined in legislation.

  359
  As large organisations, building societies can offer certain advantages. A large in-house department in, say, the Halifax building society can offer a large throughput of conveyancing transactions which can be backed by substantial financial resources and streamlined procedures. That is a natural extension of the building societies' activities, and they have a critical interest in the title. We are talking about a large throughput of work at low unit cost.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, in his Shangri-la of building societies with large conveyancing departments, the scrutiny of a conveyancing transaction for a client living in Llanidloes by the Halifax building society some 200 miles away in Yorkshire would be as good as the scrutiny given by a Llanidloes solicitor who has no interest in the transaction other than the fee that he will obtain for the conveyancing?
  Mr. Weetch: It may, or it may not be as good. These days when conveyancing transactions take place the last thing that a solicitor does is look at a property. I would go one stage further and say that I have seen bigger mistakes in my constituency by local solicitors than by solicitors who operate from London. Whether one lives in a particular locality or has a professional business in that locality frequently has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Frank Field: One of my hon. Friend's assumptions concerns falling unit costs. Is it not true that building societies might push up unit costs? They might say, "The loan is here for you if you use our lawyer, although our lawyer happens to be more expensive than one outside the building society."
  Mr. Weetch: I was going to bring up that point later in my speech when dealing with the shortcomings that we should guard against in allowing building societies to engage in conveyancing. I believe that the unit costs of the building societies will be lower because they will operate under economies of larger scale. If they do not, as long as the consumer has the option to go elsewhere for his conveyancing, he can decide what to accept and what to avoid. There should be a code of practice in which abuses and potential abuses are outlawed.
  The real point is not about conflicts of interest. The Law Society has only relatively recently stipulated that a solicitor cannot act for the buyer and seller at the same time. Until a few years ago it was the usual practice for a solicitor to act for the buyer, the seller and the building society. There are a good many cases in which that still happens. I have a constituency case where the solicitor is acting for the seller, the buyer and the building society. I wrote to the Law Society asking this simple question: is this professionally right? Unfortunately, the answer went to my constituency office in Ipswich. I said to my secretary, "Read the letter for me and simply tell me 'yes' or `no' whether it is right for a solicitor to act for the buyer and the seller." She said, "The answer appears to be a little evasive." I thought to myself, "I bet it is." This is not the first time I have come across this sort of thing. For all the arguments about conflicts of interest and who should do what in conveyancing, most solicitors do not care if Joe Soap does the conveyancing, provided they collect the profit from him.
  360
  We are not talking about ethics; we are talking about economics. Many people believe that large building societies will drive out small firms, that small solicitors' offices will be unable to compete with large building societies with in-house departments. They have genuine fears that some building societies might use conveyancing as a loss leader. Small firms would therefore tend to go out of business.
  If we applied that principle elsewhere and prevented large firms emerging we should still be in the world of the small workshop and the small grocery shop. If the conveyancing market demands that large firms emerge, they will emerge. If that is the structure that the consumer and the market place want, that is what will happen. Passing this new clause will not stop it because it will be an organic function.
  Over the years, building societies have indulged in a multiplicity of restrictive practices. They have restricted insurance cover opportunity and taken the commission. Until relatively recently, they never allowed the purchaser to have sight of the valuation survey. Building societies have been the centrepiece of the conveyancing monopoly. They have also organised a cartel on interest rates. No one was ever protected from those abuses by solicitors or any of the chartered surveyors because the major professions connived with the building societies in some of those abuses.
  Solicitors have always been able to place money in building societies, sometimes with and sometimes without the consent of their clients, in return for mortgage queue jumping, and at times of scarcity of funds, in return for building societies underpinning their monopoly and for favourable conditions for doing the mortgage work. Solicitors have often connived with the building societies in providing life policies which did not suit the consumer.
  If the legal profession criticises building societies for collecting commission, it is the pot calling the kettle black, because I know of no group of people which collects commission faster from a variety of directions than do practising solicitors. Much of that argument is therefore bogus.
  We are approaching the problem in the wrong way. Building societies can do the job, provided the potential for abuse is eliminated. We should eliminate the abuse by statutory codes of practice, not eliminate the option.
  A number of things must be done. The consumer must be given the freedom to go elsewhere. Any practice which involves pressure to take conveyancing services because a loan is being provided should be outlawed. Any contract which loads the conveyancing charge on to the mortgage, at many times the original price, should be forbidden. Loss leading should be outlawed when it is aimed at eliminating competitors.
  The Office of Fair Trading supports the idea of building societies doing conveyancing. I am confident that it can protect the consumer in all these matters. With the proper safeguards, the consumer should be given the option of having his conveyancing done by a building society, and I believe that it is not for the House to stop him.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: We have heard from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) a speech of almost religious fervour, in which he indulged in all the cheap rhetoric of lawyer bashing. I confess with some pride to being a lawyer, but I should tell the House, before the hon. Gentleman berates me for my self-interest, that I have

  361
  rarely seen a conveyance, apart from those which from time to time I have signed to accommodate myself and my family, I have never passed an examination in conveyancing, or tried to, I have never read a book on conveyancing, and I have little interest in conveyancing as a legal subject.
  I fear that one word used repeatedly by the hon. Gentleman has revealed the weakness of his argument—the word "consumer". The hon. Gentleman, and some of those who are of like mind on this issue, seem to envisage a world in which an attractive young couple will be out doing their shopping on a Saturday morning and will suddenly turn to each other and say, "Let's go and buy a house." They pop into the estate agent's and pick out a house. Then, rather as if buying a can of beans, they pop into the building society and everything is arranged for them by the smiling manager, and all goes through smoothly and without a hitch. That is seen as the world of the consumer.
  Unfortunately, we do not consume our houses as we consume a can of beans. We must live in our houses. We must live, not just with their attractions, but with their imperfections. The greatest imperfection that there can ever be in a house is a defect in the owner's title. I speak in favour of the new clause because I believe that everything possible must be done to ensure that the householder's title is protected and assured to the greatest possible extent. There is no protection for purchasers of houses comparable to that provided under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. It is not possible for a householder, who has purchased his house in circumstances which go wrong, to go to the local trading standards department and have the building society—if it be a building society—prosecuted for defective conveyancing under the Trade Descriptions Acts.
  The purchase of a house is usually the most serious, expensive, enduring and, in some cases, dramatic commitment that many people make, apart perhaps from the commitment to marriage. We should consider house purchase within that context of its importance in people's lives. It is expensive to buy a house, whether one buys it in the ritzy arbours of the south-east or on the pleasant mountains of Wales. A great deal of money must be found by the person who wishes to buy a house. It is a fact—it may be uncomfortable for those who oppose the new clause—that building society A may offer interest rates slightly lower than those offered by building society B, and the interest rates of building society C may be slightly higher than both. It is not simply a matter of a quarter or a half per cent., because it is likely that the person buying the house will be committing himself or herself for about 25 years, and a quarter per cent. means a great deal of money over those 25 years. The commitment may involve not just the mortgage repayments, but the payment of insurance premiums.
  6.30 pm
  The hon. Member for Ipswich suggested that, in his perfect world of fair and regulated building society conveyancing, there would be some kind of free choice as to which building society one would go to. More important, he said that there would be a free choice, if one went to a building society, of deciding not to use that society for one's conveyancing. He said that one could still go to the solicitor down the road for the conveyancing.
  362
  It is a custom of the hon. Member for Ipswich to listen to only one side of the argument on these issues, and he is not listening now. If he can bring himself to have the courtesy to listen, I say to him that we are in a mortgage glut at present, and it may be that people can walk out of a building society saying, "I am going to the solicitor down the road for my conveyancing," but if there were a mortgage famine, as there has often been in the past, is the hon. Gentleman really saying that one could enforce a provision whereby the building society would have to say to the prospective purchaser, "We are awfully sorry to lose your conveyancing, but of course we will give you the mortgage in any event."? One would have no such luck. A building society would not provide the mortgage for people who did not have the society doing the conveyancing.
  If the hon. Member for Ipswich honestly thinks chat building societies will not use conveyancers to ensure that they get the mortgage business on the terms that they want, it shows that he has not examined the issues properly and does not understand the meaning of the phrase "conflict of interest".
  Mr. Favell: Is that not what happens now in many states of the United States of America? If one goes to a loan company and does not use its legal services, one simply does not get the loan. The use of the legal services of the loan company is very expensive, and people in many parts of America are trying to get out of the clutches of a loan company for that reason.
  Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) for drawing attention to the American experience. His point reinforces my argument.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that his fears are reinforced by the behaviour of building societies with regard to insurance for the property?
  Mr. Carlile: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has referred to his own experience. I have had similar personal experience on two occasions. On one occasion I had to insist upon using the insurance company in which I had confidence and from which I expected to get satisfaction.
  There are, of course, mutual life offices, which do not pay commission to anybody. Many of us have taken out our own insurance policies of all types with those mutual life offices. One can hardly imagine the building societies giving anything but discouragement to purchasers of homes who wish to go to those mutual life offices, which do such a good job—and have for hundreds of years—in the insurance market.
  The hon. Member for Ipswich says—and I heard the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) muttering something to the same effect from a sedentary position—that solicitors are qualified to give financial advice. One of the basic qualifications which a solicitor must have is some financial understanding. I would be the first to question whether the present training of solicitors and barristers is either adequate or covers the fields that it should. Nevertheless, solicitors, in order to practise in conveyancing, are trained and must have a basic understanding of the transactions. In addition, they learn a great deal through their experience.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Ipswich will be aware that, under the solicitors accounts rules, a person

  363
  cannot come straight out of law school and set up in practice as a solicitor. There has first to be supervision by a senior qualified solicitor for a period of years.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that often the solicitor will get the client to question the transaction? The solicitor will say to the client, "Are you sure you want to go ahead with this? Are you sure you want to take out a loan of this size?"
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and I shall be coming to that point, but before doing so may I postulate a rhetorical question? How often do we hear of building society managers saying, "Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Jones. Thank you for your interest, but the house is pre-1919, so you will be better off down the road at another building society which gives greater percentage loans or loans at a lower rate for such properties."? How many times can we expect to hear building society managers saying—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Great Grimsby wish to intervene?
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I hope the hon. and learned member realises that, in regard to the duties of solicitors, Cordery's book, "The Law relating to Solicitors", specifies:
  "A solicitor is under no duty to advise his client whether a sale is a prudent one or whether an independent valuation is
  desirable".
  In other words, the financial side of the transaction is not the solicitor's responsibility.
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman's corduroy is as threadbare as his argument. The fact is that a solicitor who does not give that kind of advice to his client has very little prospect of continuing in practice as a solicitor. If the hon. Gentleman will open his eyes and look at the advice given by solicitors, he will find that day by day they are saying to their clients, "The terms of building society A are better than those of building society B, so although you have been to building society B to make inquiries, I suggest that you take your mortgage from building society A. How many building societies will say to Mr. and Mrs. Jones, coming in off the street, "Our terms are worse than those available down the road."?
  I received a letter yesterday from a solicitor in Hull—not a million miles from the seat of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—making precisely the point that was made in an intervention. That solicitor told me of a specific recent case in which a client of his had come into the office, having made the decision to purchase a particular property, and given him instructions to deal with the conveyance. By the end of the week the client had decided not to buy that property because the solicitor had pointed out to him that, from the resale point of view, it was not in a particularly good area, that he probably could not afford it in any event, and that he would be just as well off in his existing house with an extension, which would cost him far less money, and for which finance by way of mortgage was available. That is the sort of service that is given every day by solicitors, whose only interest in the transaction is the fee that they will have, either for the conveyancing or for the advice they give not to go ahead with the transaction.
  We heard from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) about the need for scrutiny of the
  364
  mortgage deeds. I will not repeat it; I will simply say how right he was. The House is grateful to him for making that point so forcefully.
  I have heard it suggested that the local solicitor would provide no better service than the solicitor in the great in-house office in Halifax. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby from a sedentary position that the country solicitor who does the conveyancing for the client never goes to look at the property. Perhaps I am lucky in the solicitors that I know. My own solicitor has never conveyed a house on my behalf, on the many occasions when we have moved, without walking round every inch of the boundaries of the property. At least the solicitor is there in the area, so the client can ask him to walk round and check the boundaries. In country areas the first thing that any solicitor looks at is the boundaries, either on a plan or by walking round them. If any difficulty arises as a result of the inquiries before contract, will the in-house conveyancer get into his company Rover and drive from Halifax to Llanidloes? If he does, who will pay the 30 or 40p a mile for him to do it? It will be the client. All this brings into question not just the arguments against our conflict of interest point as put forward by the building societies, but the cost-effectiveness argument that we have just heard.
  I do not expect certain Labour Members behind me to agree, but the solicitor acting independently is not in anybody's pocket except the pocket of his client. If he renders an unsatisfactory service, his client has a number of forms of redress. He can go to the Law Society, though I would rather see him going to an independent complaints body. That is a matter which we may discuss later. He can also sue his solicitor. During the Committee stage of the Bill the hon. Member for Great Grimsby asked whether it was sensibly possible for a client to sue his solicitor.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: How common is it?
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman has just asked from a sedentary position: how common is it for a solicitor to accept instructions to sue another solicitor? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases every year in which solicitors are sued by their clients. I hear laughter on the Opposition Front Bench, but those of us who practise the law have acted on innumerable occasions in actions against solicitors for breach of contract and negligence. I ask the hon. Member for Great Grimsby to produce to the House a catalogue of cases in which the negligent actions of solicitors have not been taken up but should have succeeded. I should be surprised if he is able to do so.
  Mr. Butterfill: I should like to reinforce the hon. and learned Gentleman's view on that point. I am a chartered surveyor, and my firm frequently acts for the insurers appointed by the Law Society on actions between solicitors, where one solicitor is suing another. It is a substantial proportion of the work of the firm in which I am a partner. It certainly happens very often.
  Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. If one sues a building society, as many people have had to do, one runs up against all the institutional stonewalling to which one is all too accustomed in litigation. The underwriters who deal with solicitors' negligence claims are frequently under pressure to settle, and they frequently do. Although some solicitors' negligence actions are unfortunately and needlessly

  365
  protracted, a great number of the claims are settled. Actions for solicitors' negligence generally avoid the institutional harshness of a suit against a building society.
  I turn now to the matter of solicitors' property centres. I received a letter this morning from a senior and respected solicitor who practices in the Wrexham area. He is personally known to me and I have considerable regard for his ability and his objectivity. The solicitors' property centre in Wrexham has run into professional difficulties. As I mentioned in an intervention, there are instances where one firm which makes money from the centre is acting for the vendor, and another firm which also makes money from the centre is acting for the purchaser. That raises a clear conflict of interest. I am afraid the Law Society has taken a weak line on it and says that it does not know the answer. That does not help my correspondent very much. That conflict of interest ought to be instructive to those who wish to extend conveyancing to the institutions.
  6.45 pm
  The county of Powys includes, I am delighted to say, the constituency of Brecon and Radnor. I wanted somehow to get that into the debate. In a rural area like Powys, which is but an example, there are many excellent and old-established firms of solicitors. Those firms provide an all-round service. They deal with many problems similar to those with which we deal at our constituency surgeries. They deal with matrimonial matters, crime, probate and conveyancing. Some of the things with which they deal are not within their immediate expertise, but they are able to obtain specialist advice elsewhere. To a great extent, their bread and butter is conveyancing. By and large, they are not expensive conveyancers, because they cannot be. The price of a freehold cottage in Powys may be between £15,000 and £20,000, and one cannot charge a lot of money for the conveyance of a £15,000 cottage. While conveyancing no longer subsidises other work, for litigation is nowadays apparently worth while for solicitors, without the conveyancing the prospects for many of those firms would be poor.
  I hope that the hon. Members for Ipswich and for Great Grimsby, whose party last night, in the debates on the rate support grant, was espousing the need for local services, do not wish to nationalise the legal advice service. I hope they share my view that it is desirable for a reasonable standard of legal advice to be available in all areas, including the small market towns of Montgomeryshire. I hope the hon. Gentlemen will accept that there is a risk that firms of solicitors in areas like that will be forced either to amalgamate or to cut the range of services.
  There is great competition, even hostile rivalry, between firms in small towns, which makes it as sure as anything that negligence by a firm of solicitors will be rooted out. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen agree that the level of competition and service should be maintained. I hope that they will take it from me that the profession knows best how much it depends upon conveyancing for its bread and butter.
  Amalgamations may take place. Many of them would be against the public interest, but there is an even greater danger. It is that these highly respected, independent, and in many cases exceedingly skilful firms of country solicitors, may be forced into takeovers by slick city firms. It would not be in the interests of people in the shire
  366
  counties and rural areas to have only the limited legal advice services provided by small branch offices of big city firms. Hon. Members who are tempted by institutional conveyancing should bear in mind the legal service needs of the community before they pitch in with the lobby we have heard ventilating its views this afternoon.
  Mr. Knight: In view of the propensity of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Austin Mitchell) to keep commenting on the number of lawyers who have taken part in this debate, perhaps I should start by saying I have no interest to declare. Although. I am a qualified lawyer, I currently receive no fees or remuneration from that profession. However, I have a deep unease about the prospect of building societies being allowed to carry out domestic conveyancing.
  I should draw the attention of the House to two articles that appeared in last Sunday's newspapers. The first article, from the Sunday Telegraph, was headed, "Conveyancing—the great debate." It stated something that we all accept and know:
  "Building societies argue that they would—if legally permitted to employ their own solicitors—give customers a cheaper, quicker service … Some insurance brokers voice the suspicion that building societies are invading their patch a little too greedily and are becoming intensely preoccupied with earning commission on endowment mortgages, house insurance and house contents insurance."
  Further down the same page, the paragraph headed, "The Savings Scene", referred to the proposal by the Leicester building society to merge with the Alliance. It also stated:
  "If the proposed merger of the Woolwich and Nationwide Building Societies goes ahead our three biggest societies—the Halifax, Abbey National and Woolwich-Nationwide—will outweigh all the others put together."
  There is something sinister about that. The building societies are developing their muscle in the expectation that they will be allowed soon to carry out conveyancing.
  The Sunday Times carried an article entitled, "Farewell 1874, roll on 1987: It's all go for new business." The article stated:
  "While there is little contention over services such as money transmission and insurance sales … certain other proposals raise fundamental questions about conflict of interest and about the building societies' ability to move from doing a simple job, which they are generally considered to do well, to providing some more complex financial services. On the question of ability, the portents from across the Atlantic are not good. A few years ago, the American equivalent of building societies, the savings and loan associations, were given the freedom to broaden their services. In the best-run associations, big staff changes were needed to operate the broader range of services. And at the worst run there have been multi-million dollar disasters as a result of irresponsible lending and over-ambitious investment. The building societies claim that it will not happen here."
  They would, wouldn't they? The House should note that danger.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that another danger is that building societies are not democratically accountable? In theory, their members—the depositors and borrowers—may attend their general meetings, but, in practice, hardly anyone turns up. Therefore, they are self-perpetuating oligarchies, effectively accountable to no one. In contrast, large institutional shareholders of public companies can attend their annual general meetings and influence board policies. No such thing happens with building societies.
  Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend makes a valid and telling point, and the House will have noted his comments.

  367
  The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) appeared to say that we are right to have fears, but that those fears can be regulated by legislation. He said that those who have spoken against allowing building societies to carry out conveyancing are overstating the case. However, building societies are already regulated, and I do not believe that they serve their customers as best they could. One need only walk down the high street of any town to see the offers that building societies can make, within the scope of the regulations to which they must adhere, to try to attract custom. I have noted a few of the inducements that are currently on offer. One building society offers money boxes to children who open accounts; another offers trips to a zoo; and another suggests an "adopt a duck" account, which allows its new customers to do that, and gives them free admission to a wildfowl trust centre. However, none of those accounts offers high rates of interest. In addition, the children who are induced to open such accounts cannot claim back the tax that they will pay through their savings. Under the present restrictions on building societies, the customer is not getting the best possible service. Therefore, one should be worried about what might happen if banks and building societies are allowed to carry out conveyancing.
  No Conservative Member would disagree with increased competition in conveyancing. Indeed, that is what the Bill seeks to do in a modest way. But the House must ensure that it does not allow building societies so much power in the marketplace that anti-competitive practices result. We are on thin ice, and we must tread warily.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is fascinating to see so many professionals gathered here today to defend their vested interests and earnings from the consumer. It was especially interesting to hear the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) appealing for the country solicitor vote in his constituency. I do not know whether he was unveiling Liberal party policy on competition, but, if he was, we welcome it. The real spectacle today has been Labour Members urging competition and Conservative Members, as usual, defending vested interests.
  We must be clear about the effect of the new clause. It is designed to stop competition and the development of comprehensive services to the consumer. It does so on behalf of the vested interests—especially solicitors and some other professions—which have been doing too well for too long at the expense of the consumer. That is the essence of the argument.
  There have been different approaches to the fear of competition. The Law Society, which failed to retain the conveyancing monopoly, has suddenly decided that it had better start to steal the building societies' clothes. Therefore, it has dressed itself up as the protector of the house buyer and started to attack the building societies as though they are ogres and have not been serving the house buyer for about 100 years by providing mortgages.
  The Lord Chancellor, acting here as the political arm of the Law Society—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In that case, the provisional wing of the Law Society—has produced a mythical conflict of interest which he says is sufficiently important to obviate the principle of more competition. He has not published details of the conflict
  368
  of interest, or given us any idea about the nature of the replies that he has received to his inquiries. He has not told us the number of cases to which that conflict of interest applies. We have no published evidence to support the Lord Chancellor's assertion that the conflict of interest is so overwhelming as to prevent banks and building societies from carrying out conveyancing.
  Mr. Butterfill: I should take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the new clause being a defence of vested interests. Of the hon. Members whose names are attached to the new clause, only two are solicitors. My profession is completely unregulated. Anyone—even the dustman—could set up tomorrow as an estate agent. Indeed, the dustman could set himself up tomorrow as a surveyor, which I would regret. Perhaps the House will discuss that matter later. I cannot understand what vested interest the hon. Gentleman believes I am protecting.
  Mr. Mitchell: The effect is to defend the vested interest of solicitors in maintaining an effective conveyancing monopoly. That is how it works out. The way in which the hon. Member of Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has approached it is to explode the doomsday weapon. His approach drives everything apart. We want services to come together to help the consumer. I want to pose a few questions about how this will work.
  7 pm
  If a solicitor serves on the building societies panel and does the conveyancing for somebody, he gets a separate fee for acting on that panel. That would be stopped by the new clause. He would not be able to advise the building society on title, so that practice would go. If he has an agency for a building society, that also would be stopped. If solicitors combine, as they do in Scotland and in some parts of this country to run a property centre—it is an increasing practice which I commend and which we should encourage—that, too, would be stopped by the new clause. If a solicitor is taking a commission from a building society in respect of money invested in that building society, that would stop his advising people to take out a mortgage with that building society.
  Mr. Butterfill: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman confirms the effect which I envisage. The intention of the clause is to stop people having their snouts in the same trough more than once.
  Mr. Mitchell: I agree that there is a noble spirit of self-sacrifice, but I think that the professions which are backing it do not realise exactly what is implied. They back it from a very different motive—to keep their snouts in a particularly rich trough.
  Mr. Favell: I am a practising solicitor and an agent of the Halifax Building Society. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Solicitors will suffer from the new clause if it is agreed to, and they should, because I have always believed that a dog cannot have two masters. That is why solicitors do not act for vendor and purchaser. I should like to ask one question of the hon. Gentleman. On this of all days. Would he be happy if Johnson Matthey acted for the customer and for itself in the matter of a loan, because it is a bank?
  Mr. Mitchell: I should be happy if the Treasury and the Bank of England acted on Johnson Matthey in a sensible fashion. I shall ignore that question, because it is irrelevant.

  369
  There is a spirit of self-sacrifice if a solicitor is rushing forward to give up a privilege in this fashion—it is done to stop the banks and building societies acting in competition.
  This forces us back into an old situation, but we are now discussing a new class of house buyer in today's society—people who have not bought houses in the past and who do not have the middle class skills and tradition of contact with a solicitor. The house buyer is forced to build up his own orchestra piece by piece instead of having a comprehensive service—one-stop shopping—whether it is provided by estate agents, banks, building societies or solicitors running property centres. All can compete to provide a comprehensive service. That is what we want for the house buyer, rather than the professional segregation which this measure would enforce.
  What should we do about the new clause? My view is that we should leave the Bill as it is. I have therefore tabled no amendments of the kind that we dealt with at such length in Committee to allow banks and building societies to do conveyancing, whether through licensed conveyancers or solicitors. The amendments tabled in Committee were intended to air the principle. The principle is reasonably straightforward and secure. Therefore, it would be better to leave the Bill open rather than include this unnecessary restriction. In essence, we are committed to allowing banks and building societies to do conveyancing.
  I and the sponsors of the Bill which I brought in in 1983 have firm promises from the Solicitor-General that the Government are committed to allowing banks and building societies to do conveyancing through employed solicitors. The building societies have firm promises from the Government that they will be able to provide an integrated service to the house buyer, part of which must be conveyancing.
  The Chancellor is pirouetting and wriggling, trying to find ways to fulfil the principle without conceding the practice, and he has come up with two proposals. The first is that the building societies should be allowed to do conveyancing for other people's customers. In other words, people will get killed crossing the road from the Bradford to the Halifax. Perhaps we shall have a twinning arrangement or something similarly ludicrous.
  Secondly, there is the letter of 8 July from the Lord Chancellor's Department, which states
  "that lending institutions might offer the service through subsidiary companies in which they have only a minority shareholding."
  It wants to know what conflict of interest is provoked by the size of the minority shareholding. It continues:
  "In particular, how small should an institution's holding be before it need no longer constitute a bar to the company undertaking conveyancing for borrowers?"
  There are ways to attempt to concede the principle which the Government have promised honourably to fulfil without making it so attractive that the building societies will do what is intended, but in fact they do not fulfil the promise. The promise was that banks and building societies would be allowed to do this for their customers. The alternatives are so silly that they will not work and they will be laughed out of court. Therefore, it is sensible to say what will happen.
  The Bill will allow for the possibility of licensed conveyancers being employed by banks and building societies. It is for the council to decide at its own discretion in the interest of the profession. The building society
  370
  legislation next year will allow building societies to do conveyancing, the details of which will be defined by regulations. The regulations will have to provide what we want—full freedom to do conveyancing, employing their own solicitors or conveyancers, under certain restrictions defined by the regulations. Those restrictions would be to ban loss leading, to require the supervision of the Office of Fair Trading, to ensure that there is no compulsion on the borrower to have the conveyancing done by the same building society, and to ensure that in that small minority of cases in which a conflict of interest arises—and who better than solicitors to recognise a conflict of interest when they see one?—the solicitor representing the building society shall be required to advise the customer to get his own independent advice.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The lion. Gentleman suggests the supervision of the Office of Fair Trading. How does he suggest that that supervision should be carried out when one is dealing with the local branch of a building society? If he is suggesting that it should be carried out by trading standards officers, does he realise that they already have insufficient money to carry out their statutory duty and that they have no training in this or any similar sphere?
  Mr. Mitchell: If that is the extent of the petty debating points which can be raised against the proposal, the case is unanswerable. There will be supervision by the Office of Fair Trading, to which people will be able to make complaints.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: How?
  Mr. Mitchell: Experience shows that building societies are far more sensitive to their public image, to public pressure and to complaints, and they are far more vulnerable than solicitors. Indeed, solicitors have been able to maintain a monopoly of conveyancing for many years, despite the protests of the public. As soon as the pressure develops that building societies should offer a range of choice and insurance policies, they do so. As a result, we now have three insurance companies recommended by building societies. The details can be worked out later. [Interruption.] That is the way in which legislation is normally passed, is it not? We define the principle, and we set out the procedures in regulations.
  To conjure up such hypothetical fears is the feeblest of possible defences against the proposal. Let us be clear about what the solicitors are pleading against banks and building societies. The solicitors say, "We have perfect practice. Everything we do is perfect and efficient. We always inspect the property and supervise the conveyancing"—when it is done mainly by secretaries and clerks—"and we always advise the customer." That, in the main, is rubbish. Some solicitors work in that fashion while others do not. Probably most do not.
  Against what is proposed, they are conjuring up the spectre of hypothetical fears and extreme cases. For example, in all the cases produced today, even by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the building society would not have given a mortgage in the first place. After all, it is in the interest of the building society to ensure that it has good title, that the person should be able to repay the mortgage, and that it has a good relationship with its customers. The building society is, therefore, as well qualified to deal with these matters as solicitors.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that he is wrong in his assumption that the

  371
  building society would not give a mortgage in the cases that I cited? In the Hull case, the building society was prepared to give a mortgage, but the solicitor advised the client not to proceed, and eventually the client accepted the solicitor's advice.
  Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept from me that the experience of the Halifax building society, with all its branches, is that it could find no cases in which solicitors had recommended against the mortgage offered by that society? That adequately covers the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made about building societies being huge organisations thrusting piles of money at every borrower. That is a myth. Everybody knows how difficult it is to obtain a mortgage and how much scrutiny takes place by building societies into individual cases. As I say, it is in the interest of the society that the borrower is able to carry the mortgage and that the title is good.
  Mr. Butterfill: My experience as a practising chartered surveyor is that most building societies—my firm acts for 32 banks and building societies—are interested only in the security of the loan. When banks and building societies lend small sums of money, secured against valuable property, they do not care whether there are serious defects in the property, which may be of great concern to the purchaser, so long as there is enough security in the property to guarantee the loan. Therefore, there is not always identity of interest between the purchaser and the building society.
  Mr. Mitchell: Hon. Members are raising extreme cases. In every case that has been brought to my attention there have been strict inquiries. It must be agreed that, as a general proposition, the building society wants good title because it might need to realise the asset. Nor does it want the odium of turning people out of house and home if they cannot pay the premiums.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West posited an extreme and unlikely case, and that is true of all the arguments that have been adduced against this change. The conflict of interest argument is fallacious. People turn, in the first instance, to the building society. They go to a solicitor only after they have been to the building society. The two procedures—the conveyancing and the arranging of the mortgage—proceed concurrently but independently. That is what happens in the real world.
  Nor are solicitors qualified to give the independent financial advice that is being raised now as a strong argument.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Weetch: I was told recently by the general manager—a highly qualified solicitor—of a major building society, one of the top six, that in 50 per cent. of cases the mortgage deed was prepared wrongly—it is a question only of filling in blanks—and that in many cases the wrong mortgage deed was returned. In other words, if the mortgage was being given by the Halifax, the deed sent back was, say, from the Alliance.
  Mr. Mitchell: That corresponds with my experience in doing my own conveyancing in London. At one stage I received a communication from the solicitor representing the other side asking why the house was registered as two separate properties. I discovered that he had sent me
  372
  details of somebody else's house. That is the efficient care that is taken in these cases. I accept the evidence of the building societies about the inadequacy of work done by the solicitors.
  The need for independent advice has been raised as a kind of bogey man to frighten us away from giving conveyancing to banks and building societies. Plainly, solicitors are not qualified to give that independent advice. If they are now putting themselves forward as providing financial advice, I welcome that because it is another area in which they want to compete. Nevertheless, most solicitors do not know the range of mortgages and building societies, and, more important, most solicitors have a vested interest in channelling customers to the building society in which they invest their funds, from which they get commission and with which they have a close working relationship. How can that be described as independent advice?
  For the benefit of, among others, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, with his legal expertise, I shall quote a case to show that the legal evidence goes against the idea of the provision of independent financial advice by solicitors. The most important case was in 1962. In Bowdage v. Harold Mitchelmore and Company, the plaintiff, a games mistress, wanted to sell a piece of land. I need not go into the details. Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson said that a solicitor who acted for a client in relation to the sale of land could not be said, in the absence of special instructions, to undertake the duty of advising the client whether the transaction was, from the client's point of view, prudent.
  In other words, it is not part of a solicitor's duty to give the sort of advice that is now put forward as an argument for stopping solicitors employed by banks and building societies from doing conveyancing. One cannot argue in favour of a practice which does not exist on a legal basis which is fictitious.
  Sir Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading, himself a barrister, said that if building societies were allowed to develop conveyancing, it would provide for
  "'one-stop shopping' for housing … and will lead to greater competition with others who provide such services, and this should benefit housebuyers whether they opt for 'one-stop shopping' or not because competition from building societies will keep everyone on their toes."
  That is obviously true. The costs of conveyancing have come down by 20 to 30 per cent. We must keep up the pressure to keep those prices coming down. That means extending the competition to banks and building societies and not allowing solicitors to sit back, cosily saying, "There is no greater threat from licensing conveyancers. We can start upping the charges once again and milk the customer."
  Sir Gordon Borne added:
  "Contrary to the views of the Law Society, I do not see any inherent or insurmountable conflict of interest if a building society were to provide conveyancing services to a purchaser who is also a borrower from that society. Both have a common interest in ensuring that good title passes from vendor to purchaser. The Law Society has stressed the value to the client of independent advice, for example, as to which building society to go to or as to whether a repayment mortgage or endowment mortgage would suit him best. Those matters seem to me more a 'selling point' for the independent solicitor's services than grounds for disallowing building society employed solicitors from providing basic conveyancing services."
  What would be the position if banks and building societies were not allowed to carry out conveyancing,

  373
  which would be the effect of the new clause? The proposal at present comes really only from the Lord Chancellor, who is effectively out on a limb on this matter. I receive plaintive letters from him—some of them increasingly abusive, but they are mainly plaintive—telling me that I must realise that he is the embodiment not only of the law, but of the Government.
  That cannot be true. If it is, it means that the Government are not fulfilling the honourable promises that were made to me and to the other sponsors of my Bill. If it were true, the Government would not be following their policy on competition and dealing with professional as well as public and financial monopolies. If it were true, the Government would not be following the wishes of the Department of Trade and Industry in this matter. They would be putting themselves in the ludicrous position of bowing to the vested interest of the Law Society—the new Scargill—which brings the Government, or at least the Lord Chancellor, quaking to their knees. The Government are saying to the Law Society, "Yes, you are right, we must betray our policies and act against competition. You, the Law Society, are such a powerful vested interest that we shall give way to you." The Government cannot afford to be involved in such a spectacle.
  We are seeing Rumpole's last stand—the last stages of an ongoing, long-running comedy programme—but Rumpole in this instance cannot stop the tide of progress. Of course banks and building societies should be allowed to do conveyancing, and it is an essential part of competition.
  There is a rapidly expanding market with new generations of house buyers. Some 70 per cent. of houses will be privately owned by the end of the century. People will sell and buy houses much more frequently. The turnover is growing all the time. This is a rich market in which there is room for everyone, but there must be competition to stop the vested interest developing. One does not create monopolies by widening competition. We must bring down prices and get people to compete to serve the customer.
  We are seeing new methods and competition, prices falling, and new entrants to the market. All that is good for the public and for house buying because it makes house buying wider and more freely available. That is what we want to encourage and that is why the new clause is wrong. Neither the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West nor the Chancellor can stand in the way of this tidal wave of progress, which will engulf them both.
  Mr. Roger Freeman: I cannot agree with the analysis by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), because I do not believe that greater competition, which I agree is needed in this sector, is inconsistent with the importance of separating what may be in some cases a conflict of interest. He argued that the only way in which we can achieve greater competition in the legal profession's provision of conveyancing services is to ignore, or break down and throw away, the separation of interests that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) outlined. I apologise for the fact that I was not here when the new clause was moved, and therefore did not hear all of my hon. Friend's speech.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that he thought that most Conservative Members had a vested
  374
  interest in this matter. I have no vested interest in the conveyancing of houses. I am a chartered accountant, and therefore in an allied profession, but I am not involved in any way in the conveyance of property or the lending of money to those who purchase and sell property. Therefore, I do not fall into the category outlined by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
  However, I have talked to the solicitors in my constituency. We have half a dozen firms in my provincial town, and I have discussed the Bill with them over the year and a half since the hon. Member for Great Grimsby first advanced his views. I have kept in touch with the local legal profession and sought its views and comments.
  The solicitors in my constituency accept the principle of licensed conveyancing, if not with open arms. However, there are problems, on which I have some questions for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. The problems arise out of one-stop shopping—permitting the bank to provide not only the money and the financial facility to exchange the property, but also a survey and the conveyancing. That concerns solicitors in my constituency and I shall advance some of their worries. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West if I repeat any of the points that he has made, but it is important that they are rehearsed clearly.
  The new clause does not prohibit banks from offering conveyancing services to third parties. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that banks and building societies that have licensed conveyancers on their staff would not be providing conveyancing services to others. It is obvious that they would provide those services to customers. Therefore, some of the economies of scale and of modern technology and greater competition would clearly apply in those cases. The new clause only stops banks from offering conveyancing services to customers with whom they are involved in providing finance.
  It is important to emphasise that in my constituency the service of conveyancing is competitive. There is great competition between the firms of lawyers in the principal town. I know that, because I have checked it. I have looked at the way in which conveyancing fees have moved over the past five years and particularly in the past 12 months. There is no question but that that service is provided competitively.
  I have another point to raise with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I am concerned that there are certain instances where the independent advice to the potential property owner is important. For example, in the two years in which I have represented my constituency I have come across many instances of the problem of rights of access. This has nothing to do with the value of the property; they are problems that the solicitor would point out to his clients. I wonder whether a licensed conveyancer working for a bank would not be tempted to cut corners by not exaggerating, or even not pointing out in clear language, the potential problems of rights of access.
  Another example would be responsibility for upkeep on either a property shared in common or common party walls to property. Again, this does not necessarily affect the value of properties on which the loan transaction is based but it affects the rights of the property owner and his enjoyment of that property. There is also the problem of the rights of foreclosure on the mortgage loan, on which important and independent advice should be offered. A licensed conveyancer might be influenced by his

  375
  employer, the bank, in not drawing the attention of the customer with great clarity to what some of those rights and commitments are.
  Impartial advice is also needed on finance. I have come across several instances in which the solicitor has asked whether his client is aware that alternative finance might be available at a cheaper rate than the rate quoted by the building society or whatever, a rate that appears to be a little on the high side. He might tell the client that it might be beneficial to shop around. Such impartial advice would not be available at a one-stop shop.
  These are all examples of issues on which the solicitor or the licensed conveyancer should be providing advice for his clients. If he is employed by a bank with one-stop shopping I wonder whether this advice will be brought out as clearly as it should be. I agree that new clause 2 prevents solicitors from enjoying the benefits of commissions when arranging finance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West is being consistent—he is saying that banks should not be involved in the conveyance and that the licensed conveyancer for a firm of solicitors should not receive any other financial reward from the transaction.
  7.30 pm
  What sanctions will be available in regard to a group or bank which does not conform to the high standards adopted by most firms of solicitors? There are sanctions for solicitors and there will be sanctions for licensed conveyancers, but whence will the pressure come to ensure that high standards in banks are preserved?
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that some solicitors are inefficient, that some members of the great British public want one-stop shopping and that, because we want greater competition, we should permit banks to convey property through licensed conveyancers. He cares little for the so-called conflict of interest argument. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's initiative during the past two years, but he will get competitive pressures in the profession through the introduction of licensed conveyancers offering a conveyancing service to customers with whom they are not involved financially.
  Such competitive pressures will arise naturally. The benefits of those pressures are already obvious in my constituency. The customer is getting a good deal. We should consider whether it is wise to throw out, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has in a cavalier fashion, the benefits that must be worth serious consideration. Insufficient consideration has been given to the importance of independent advice. A solicitor or licensed conveyancer with no financial interest has a responsibility to ensure that the client is properly advised. I look forward to my hon. and learned Friend's comments. I have raised these issues because they have been raised with me.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am not a lawyer, so, as I am not accustomed to being paid by the length of time that I am on my feet, I can be mercifully brief.
  My hon. Friends have advanced two reasons why we should oppose new clause 2. The first is that we should oppose restrictive practices. I must declare a vested interest as a member of a political party that was brought into existence by the trade union movement and which understands the value of restrictive practices or, as we like to call them when talking about our own territory, checks
  376
  and balances. Before I am enticed into attacking restrictive practices, I should like to spend a little more time establishing where such an argument might lead me.
  The second reason that has been adduced for opposing the new clause is that the market should decide the shape and size of firms servicing customers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) said that those comments would thrill the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). That might be the case, but they do not thrill me.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I have my name on the new clause anyway.
  Mr. Field: That is indeed true. The market might well decide the shape of firms, or so the theory tells us, but the fact remains that we all favour competition if we are doing the competing but we never favour it if it operates against us. One of the natural laws of the market, therefore, is that people try to do deals to limit competition. I therefore do not find the two reasons for opposing the new clause persuasive.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) painted a large canvas with a broad brush. Mine will be small. I should like to consider building societies and what I consider to be the growth of the new Leviathan. Building societies have recently taken over some of the functions of banks. People have asked what harm that has done. We are beginning to hear that the building societies believe that they should take over some of the functions of post offices and sub-post offices, such as the payment of pensions. If they get that deal, there will be wholesale closures of post offices, although building societies will not take on the full ranee of functions offered by post offices.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is no use conjuring up bogey men. My hon. Friend asked what harm it had done for building societies to go into competition with banks. What harm has it done?
  Mr. Field: That development did no harm, but it does not follow logically that, because that did no harm, all following changes will do no harm. My hon. Friend and I will, as always, oppose the closure of sub-post offices if building societies get the job of paying pensions.
  We have been asked to whom building societies are responsible. The answer is, very few except those who run them. Building societies already provide loans, are in league with house agents, undertake surveys, arrange insurance deals for property and try to persuade customers to take out indemnity policies for mortgages. The House has a right to draw a line and say that building societies already have enough power and influence without our adding yet another and important twist.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has argued powerfully several times that Labour should use every opportunity to attack the extraordinary fees that some lawyers earn. I am in sympathy with that argument, but my hon. Friend's proposed solution is worse than the evil. If we want to limit the amount of money that lawyers can earn from conveyancing, there is a simple method—lay down a scale of fees for conveyancing. It would be more effective for the House to debate that proposal than to give building societies even more power as an indirect means of limiting the power of lawyers.
  The two main arguments against the new clause do not persuade me. We have allowed building societies to

  377
  assume an extraordinary range of powers. So far, those powers have usually been exercised with considerable responsibility, but that does not necessarily mean that this will continue, and at this stage we say that building societies are big enough.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I shall also try to be brief, and not just because I, too, am not a lawyer.
  New clause 2, which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and other hon. Members seek to add to the Bill, is designed to deal with conflicts of interest over conveyancing. The hon. Member for Bournernouth, West properly identified three separate areas of professional concern where the debate about conflict of interest is important. He made a strong point about solicitors acting as estate agents, particularly when a chain of sales is being handled by one firm. His point about insurance brokers also had merit. I shall deal later with whether or not it can be covered by regulation.
  His third category occupied more time in Committee than any other item. New Clause 2 overstates its case in relation to this third category. All hon. Members agree that unfair practices should be prevented. The division between us relates to how it should be prevented and what constitutes a conflict of interest. Hon. Members also agree that we are living through a period of change. For that reason, if for no other, we should approach the problem in a measured way.
  The view of the Opposition is that it would be possible, by regulation, for banks and building societies to provide an in-house conveyancing service. We object to new clause 2 because, whether intentionally or not, it completely closes the door to that possibility. The Opposition's view is that the interests of the consumer are best protected by a plurality of provision. We do not want building societies to establish, because of their power to make loans, a monopoly over conveyancing services. One of the tests of the regulations should be the maintenance of a plurality of provision, thus preventing unfair practices by building societies because of their control over the provision of finance.
  There is a range of objections to banks and building societies providing an in-house service. The first objection falls into the category of special pleading. The case for rural solicitors was put very persuasively in Committee by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottoway) but his case did not persuade me. It was that the funding of rural solicitors was to be underpinned by those who seek to transfer their houses in rural areas. I am not sure that that is fair. People who live in rural areas should have the choice of a cheaper conveyancing service, if it is available.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: What steps would a Labour Government take, bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman has just said, to ensure that legal services continued to be made available on a broad front in rural areas?
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Brown: Had the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) diligently attended the Committee proceedings, as did Conservative Members and my colleagues, he would have known that that matter was dealt with during our discussions on legal aid and law centres. But of course he did not diligently attend the
  378
  Committee proceedings. I do not intend to travel again over that ground, because that is not the issue with which we are dealing.
  Mr. Carlile: Answer the question.
  Mr. Brown: I shall deal next with my second point, on conflicts of interest. Genuine and perfectly proper objections can be made to building societies providing an in-house conveyancing service, but my view is that those objections can be met. There is no conflict of interest between the organisation providing the finance and the individual who, according to the title deeds, will eventually be the owner of the property. Both the individual and the organisation providing the money have a clear interest in achieving a secure title. However, a conflict of interest arises on financial advice.
  It is wrong to expect an in-house conveyancer who is employed by a building society impartially to advise the purchaser of the property. The point was well made in Committee by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that many solicitors do not provide advice on these matters. House purchasers have already secured their mortgages before they ask somebody to handle the conveyancing side of the transaction, so it ought to be possible to make regulations to deal with this point. I understand that the Lord Chancellor does not intend to do this, but on this point the Bill is permissive and it would be possible for a future Government to make regulations to meet it. If the new clause is successful, that will not be possible.
  At this stage, therefore, the Bill ought to be permissive so that we can return later to this matter. We should explore further the possibility of making regulations and be able to discuss this matter again. I have no doubt that we shall discuss it again, together with many other points that are contained in the Bill.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I, too, shall be brief but because I am a lawyer! I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on moving this new clause, thereby giving an opportunity to the House to discuss further the vexed question of how best to protect the public from advice tainted by interest while at the same time protecting the public from unnecessary restraints on competition. Although it has been a longer debate than many hon. Members expected, it has been of a very high quality.
  The balance of the argument has been against the proposition of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) that the concern expressed by Conservative Members about conflict of interest is bogus. Many impressive speeches pointed to the real danger that a conflict of interest can arise.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Mainly by lawyers.
  The Solicitor-General: No, that is not right. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) asked whether or not it was important that there should be independent advice on a number of matters—for example, about alternative means of financing loans and the responsibility for the upkeep of party walls. The question at issue is whether one should legislate to protect the public in all circumstances against such a risk or whether one should legislate on a less extensive scale and

  379
  rely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, on the ability of the public to choose advice elsewhere. It is far from easy to solve that problem.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General mentioned on Second Reading, the Farrand committee said:
  "The risks to the consumer are too great to permit market forces alone to control entrance to…the conveyancing market. Our approach in considering the safeguards needed for non-solicitors to undertake conveyancing has thus been to propose certain essential restrictions on competition, although these are intended to go no wider than is necessary to ensure adequate consumer protection."
  That approach can be validly applied to the wider subject with which the new clause is concerned.
  I wish to make clear the Government's position on conveyancing by employees of building societies and other financial institutions. We are committed to introducing legislation to permit banks and building societies to offer financial services and we are committed to doing so in a way that does not prejudice the consumer through conflicts of interest or anti-competitive practices. Both limbs of that commitment are important and both will be honoured.
  The problem is that arrangements for a loan are an integral part of most conveyancing transactions and the lender's employee is inhibited in advising the borrower about the loan, because he owes his primary duty and his livelihood to his employer. That has meant that the difficulties in the way of lending institutions providing conveyancing services have proved more intractable than had been expected.
  Since the consultation exercise on which we embarked, we have been examining ways of carrying forward our commitments. We have decided to amend the legislation that prevents all corporate bodies, including building societies, from offering conveyancing services. The Lord Chancellor will be empowered to exempt individual corporate bodies from the restrictions and to impose general conditions on the way in which the services are provided, to ensure that the consumers' interests are not prejudiced. The legislative mechanism will have to be flexible enough to enable new ideas to be implemented quickly and without the need for further primary legislation. We intend to take those powers in the next Session.
  The new clause would prohibit any persons or bodies from providing conveyancing services if they also provided a loan, estate agency or brokerage services in the same or a related transaction. I hope that I have demonstrated that we share the anxieties behind the new clause. There would be a clear danger of conflicts of interest if mortgage brokers or insurance brokers formed partnerships or corporate bodies with licensed conveyancers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West drew attention to the significant sums that can be earned in commission. They are a plain source of temptation to temper the advice that might otherwise be given.
  I do not need to take time over matters that have been extensively explored in the debate. However, we believe that the new clause is too sweeping in its exclusions. For example, it would rule out the present practice of the purchaser's solicitor drawing up the mortgage deed on behalf of the building society after the contract has been agreed and he has advised his client. That is a harmless, indeed beneficial, practice.
  380
  The Government's aim is to increase competition in conveyancing as much as possible, provided that proper consumer protection is maintained. We welcome measures to reduce the number of agencies that a purchaser has to deal with when moving house, subject to the overriding need adequately to protect the public from conflicts of interest. We see no difficulties arising if lending institutions offer services in transactions where they are not also providing a loan—my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering rightly pointed out that the new clause would not prevent that—but we have not yet found a way in which those institutions could provide a combined package of loans and conveyancing without risking unacceptable conflicts of interest. Lending institutions are commercial organisations and their interest is in the arrangements for the loan, as distinct from ensuring good title, and is not the same as that of the borrower.
  Although we have not overcome the problem, we are continuing to work on it and one possibility under examination is that lending institutions might provide the services through subsidiary companies in which they hold only a minority 'stake. The Lord Chancellor recently met the chairman of the Building Societies Association and made it clear that the Government would welcome a solution that dealt with the problem of conflicts of interest. There is a genuine welcome for all constructive suggestions, but it would be irresponsible for us to pretend that problems do not exist.
  We remain committed to increasing competition, we are determined to ensure that the interests of the consumer will be adequately protected when we introduce reforms, and we shall continue to build on the progress already made. Increased competition means that conveyancing services can readily be obtained at prices that are about one third lower than those prevailing a year or two ago, as was confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West.
  Licensed conveyancers will inject a further element of competition and such developments are enormously in the interests of all our constituents. Therefore, after what I have said about the Government's approach to this important matter, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West will agree that, on balance, it would be better for him not to press his new clause, but rather to allow the Government to bring forward their proposals in due course.
  Mr. Butterfill: Perhaps inadvertently, my hon. and learned Friend did not refer to my reservations about estate agents being involved in conveyancing and solicitors being involved in estate agency work. Will he comment on that matter and on whether it would be possible for the regulations that are to be drafted by the Lord Chancellor to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure?
  The Solicitor-General: I carried my enthusiasm for brevity too far. I shall deal with both those points. I shall report to the Lord Chancellor that my hon. Friend wishes the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. My noble Friend will consider that request, but I cannot give my hon. Friend any assurances.
  8 pm
  We have to face the fact that solicitors at present provide a combined estate agency and conveyancing package. I know that some hon. Members have reservations about that, and we understand the strength of

  381
  those reservations. Nevertheless, that is the position. We did not feel that the provision of a combined package of sale and conveyancing to vendors raised such overwhelming difficulties that we needed to urge the Law Society to prohibit it. At present estate agents cannot provide conveyancing services. Obviously, a solicitor could not provide conveyancing services to a purchaser if that solicitor was acting for the vendor. That is not permitted.
  On the face of it, the present position puts estate agents at an unfair competitive disadvantage compared with solicitors, and therefore we are considering whether estate agents should be free to provide similar packages to vendors. Certain requirements would need to be met before those packages could be permitted, if they were to be permitted. We would need to ensure that the conveyancing work was properly supervised by a qualified person. Similar rules governing conflicts of interest would have to apply to estate agents offering conveyancing, as they do to solicitors in private practice. We shall need to consider whether special arrangements should be made to protect against conflicts of interest where an estate agent is selling more than one house in a chain. Comprehensive financial arrangements would have to be made to secure adequate consumer protection.
  Subject to those essential requirements, we are considering whether estate agents should be permitted to provide the service so that they can compete on equal terms.
  Mr. William Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned consumer protection, but he did not mention competence. In the context of estate agents providing conveyancing services at present practised by solicitors, does he agree that competence is extremely important, and that it is difficult to ensure that an estate agent will be competent to provide such legal services?
  The Solicitor-General: That is right, but we are talking about employed solicitors or employed licensed conveyancers.
  Incidentally, in a debate which has given rise to the figure of Lord Chancellor Rumpole, I agree that competence is of great importance in all these matters.
  Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his many assurances. I must confess that I am a little disappointed with what he said about estate agents because I had hoped that the Government could find it preferable if neither lawyers nor estate agents were involved in a position where there could be a conflict. Nevertheless, I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's point that I may have gone further than advisable, and under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

  PREVENTION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES AND MONOPOLY SITUATIONS.
  `For the purpose of preventing anti-competitive practices and monopoly situations or their development in the field of conveyancing services and services connected with such services by persons or bodies corporate involved in or directing or controlling such services, whether directly or indirectly, the Director-General of Fair Trading and the Secretary of State shall, from the date of the commencement of any of the provisions of Part II of this Act, keep the provision of those services under
  382
  constant review in pursuance of their functions respectively under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980.'.—[Mr. Cash.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Cash: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
  I am deeply worried that we may be moving towards concentrating economic power in the hands of lending institutions. The new clause relates to part II of the Bill, which to a certain extent anticipates the building societies legislation that we expect next year. To prevent anticompetitive practices and monopolies or their development in conveyancing services and services connected with such services by persons who would be involved in directing or controlling those services, the new clause provides that the Director General of Fair Trading and the Secretary of State shall be obliged from the date of the commencement of part II of the Act to keep the provision of those services under constant review in pursuance of their powers and duties under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980.
  I received a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in which he states:
  "We will have the opportunity to debate the economic power of the lending institutions, and its relevance to the question of whether they should be permitted to offer conveyancing services, when the provision enabling the Lord Chancellor to exempt `recognised' bodies corporate"—
  that is, bodies recognised in clause 31—
  "from the restrictions on conveyancing for reward is brought forward next Session. I dare say the matter will also be touched upon on Wednesday."
  He continues
  "As I said in Committee, we do not consider that any special provision is needed to protect against anti-competitive practices and monopoly situations in conveyancing when Part II of the Bill comes into force. We believe the existing legislation is sufficient."
  I am deeply worried that the provision of conveyancing services under part II of the Bill will be part of a new monopoly by lending institutions regarding land tenure. In future, on an inevitably progressive basis, building societies and banks will provide estate agency, insurance brokerage, jobbing, stockbrokerage and conveyancing services.
  There are strong arguments for effective international competition for economic institutions so that they can compete effectively abroad. However, there are significant dangers in the path that we choose to tread, because its consequence is to concentrate a vast amount of economic power in the hands of relatively few lending institutions. As a consequence, we may regret having followed that path, unless—I believe that this is both a classically Liberal and a classically Tory position—we are sure that anti-competitive practices and monopolies will not develop.
  My right hon. and learned. Friend said that he did not think that it was necessary to have any special provision to deal with the problem because the powers under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980 are sufficient. My point is that we must deal with the problem of anti-competitive practices and monopolies before, not when, they have accumulated. That is what my new clause provides.
  When I looked over my notes on the subject I was particularly interested to see a quotation from the Nationwide building society's general manager on 2 April 1984. He said:

  383
  "Within ten years, the number of building societies in Britain is likely to have shrunk from 200 to no more than 10, and these 10 will be almost indistinguishable from retail banks in the range of services they offer to personal customers."
  Only four days ago, on Saturday 13 July, The Times announced that the Nationwide and Woolwich building societies were to merge, with £15 billion-worth of assets. Therefore, the trend is already being well established. Mr. Tim Melville-Ross, chief general manager of the Nationwide building society, is quoted in the The Times as having said:
  "the main reason for the merger was to create a society better able to take advantage of the new powers coming to building societies under legislation to be passed in 1987.
  As we move into new areas of business it will be important for societies to have sheer size and financial strength … We will look to take advantage of most of the new powers under the coming legislation."
  He seems to have made my point quite well. I believe that the trend will be followed by other building societies.
  I have argued consistently and vigorously for the position adopted by the Conservative party—it is a conviction which I hold strongly—in favour of fair and free competition. The aggregation and accumulation of power by the lending institutions will seriously divert us from a principle which otherwise I would thoroughly applaud, unless it is monitored carefully from the beginning of the acquisition of the powers.
  I support the principle behind the Bill and the extension to licensed conveyancers, provided that they are fully competent to do the sort of work which hitherto has been done exclusively by solicitors. It is impossible to argue that there is no connection between the Bill and the proposed building societies Bill or the provision of conveyancing services by banks. I have already made clear my objection to the provision of these services. That is borne out in principle by the White Paper "Financial Services in the United Kingdom." The provision of conveyancing services under these new arrangements is likely to become yet another of the financial services provided by the lending institutions.
  In Committee I quoted a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Referring to the financial services, he said:
  "The Secretary of State will have the power, to be exercised on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, to revoke or amend rules which have anti-competitive effects."
  The same point is made in chapter 8 of "Financial Service in the United Kingdom," which states:

  "(i) to apply a consistent framework of competition law throughout the financial services sector; and

  (ii) enable the Secretary of State to require the Boards to amend or withdraw either of their own rules of those of organisations recognised by them if he is persuaded that such rules are detrimental to competition and not justified in the interests of investor protection."

  A similar point is made on page 42 of the White Paper, which refers to the desirability of obtaining the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. If what is good enough for the White Paper on financial services is to be applied to competition, the same provisions should be applied to conveyancing services.
  Professor Payne of Alabama, a Warner professor of law emeritus, has made his position clear on the experience that the United States has gained from seeing conveyancing services fall into the hands of the lending institutions. I am not advancing an argument to support the
  384
  solicitors. My concern is to protect the consumer, not solicitors. We must ensure at the same time that we honour our commitment to competition. Professor Payne said:
  "In most parts of the United States conveyancing costs are higher than in England. In recent years they have become so outrageous as to incite prolonged hearings in the Congress and an investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. For the high price the buyer pays he receives only a fraction of the services and protection taken as a matter of course on the other side of the Atlantic … Every unbiased observer admits that the American system works badly for everyone except the mortgagee. Chronic criticism of the system is voiced but gets nowhere because the lending institutions do not want change."
  8.15 pm
  Sir Gordon Borne has suggested that there should be a number of caveats on the provision of conveyancing by the lending institutions. He has said that these will be needed if the public are to benefit and continue to benefit from the new competition. He contends that competition will operate effectively only so long as the customer knows precisely what services are available to him. He believes that where the building societies provide a range of services to a single client, the services should be priced transparently. He considers it essential that there should be a "dose of official weed killer" to ensure proper and full competition in the provision of these services.
  The new clause would effectively provide the sort of weed killer which the Director General of Fair Trading is proposing should be applied. It would ensure that we live up to the principles of competition to which we adhere. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to give me some specific assurances that we shall not engage in anti-competitive practices and monopolies when part II comes into force.
  The Attorney-General: I well understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), but I must limit my reply to the purpose of this part of the Bill, which deals with licensed conveyancers. Many of my hon. Friend's anxieties will be more appropriately expressed when we come to consider the building societies Bill next year.
  I explained in Committee that the provision of conveyancing services is already within the scope of the Competition Act 1980. Investigations through the normal machinery—a a reference from the Director General of Fair Trading to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which in turn reports to the Secretary of State—are available. The new clause is really not necessary to enable us to deal with anti-competitive or monopolistic practices when part II comes into force.
  It has been suggested that it would be preferable to prevent such practices arising in the first place by requiring the Director General of Fair Trading and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to vet rules drawn up by the bodies connected with conveyancing. Let us consider what is proposed in the Bill. The Lord Chancellor will not approve rules that allow anti-competitive practics to operate. He will, of course, consult the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will no doubt take advice from the Director General of Fair Trading, before concurring with rules drawn up by the council to ensure that the sort of situation of which my hon. Friend is fearful does not arise. Thereafter, the Director General will keep under review the operation of licensed conveyancers as part of his general statutory duties to ensure that no

  385
  undesirable practices subsequently develop. In our view, that is entirely adequate, and there is no need for the special provision which the new clause promotes.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the clarity of his reply. I am glad to note the assurance that he has given. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

  SOLICITORS COMPLAINTS BOARD
  `1.—(1) There shall be a body to be known as the Solicitors Complaints Board.
  (2) It shall be the general duty of the Board to promote high standards of competence and professional conduct among solicitors and to ensure that those standards are sufficient to secure adequate protection for members of the public.
  (3) Schedule [The Solicitors Complaints Board] to this Act shall have effect with regard to the Board.
  2.—(1) The Board may, in pursuance of its general duty referred to in paragraph (2) of subsection 1, make rules, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls and after consultation with the Council of the Law Society, for regulating in relation to any matter the professional practice, conduct and discipline of solicitors, including rules for regulating the association of solicitors with other persons in connection with the provision of legal services to members of the public.
  (2) If any solicitor fails to comply with rules made under this section any person may make a complaint in respect of that failure to the Board.
  3.—(1) There shall be established two committees of the Board to be known as the Investigation Panel and the Adjudication Panel, constituted as provided by the Board by rules under this section and having, as from the appointed clay, the functions conferred or imposed on them by or under subsections 4, 5 and 6 of this section.
  (2) Rules under paragraph (1) above—

  (a) shall secure that a person who sits as a member of the investigation panel in the preliminary proceedings on any case shall not sit as a member of the Adjudication Panel in any subsequent proceedings on that case; and

  (b) shall not come into force until approved by order of the Lord Chancellor.

  (3) The power to make orders under paragraph (2) above shall be exercisable by Statutory Instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and includes power to vary of revoke such an order by subsequent order.
  4.—(1) The Investigation Panel shall have the functions conferred or imposed on them by this section.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the panel to investigate any case in which—

  (a) a complaint is made to the Board by or on behalf of a member of the public against a solicitor, in respect of the professional conduct of, or the services provided by that solicitor; or

  (b) it is alleged that a solicitor—

  (i) has (whether while a solicitor or otherwise) been convicted by any court in the United Kingdom of a criminal offence which renders him unfit to practice as a solicitor; or

  (ii) has, while holding a practising certificate in force under the Solicitors Act 1974, failed to comply with any condition to which that practising certificate was subject; or

  (iii) has failed to comply with any rules made by the Board under this Act; with a view to presenting the findings of such investigation to a Tribunal of the Adjudicating Panel for determination under subsection 6 of this section.

  (3) For the purposes of paragraph 2(a) a complaint against a person who, at the time of the matters complained of, was an employee or associate of a solicitor shall be treated as a complaint against that solicitor.
  (4) Any reference in paragraphs (2) and (3) to a solicitor includes reference to a person who was a solicitor at the time of the matters in question.
  5.—(1) Where the Investigation Panel are satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purposes of investigating any complaint made to the Board—

  (a) alleging professional misconduct by a solicitor; or

  (b) relating to the quality of any professional services provided by a solicitor,

  the Board may give notice to the solicitor or his firm requiring the production or delivery to any person appointed by the Board, at a time and place to be fixed by the Board, of all documents in the possession of the solicitor or his firm in connection with the matters to which the complaint relates (whether or not they relate also to other matters)
  (2) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (12) of paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974, together with paragraphs 12 to 16 of that Schedule, shall apply in relation to the powers conferred by paragraph (1) as they apply in relation to the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 of that Schedule and accordingly in those provisions—

  (a)any reference to the Society shall be construed as including a reference to the Board; and

  (b) any reference to a person appointed, or to a requirement, under sub-paragraph (1) aforesaid shall be construed as including a reference to a person appointed, or to a requirement, under paragraph (1); and

  (c) any reference to any such documents as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) aforesaid shall be construed as including a reference to any such documents as are mentioned in paragraph (1).

  (6)—(1) The Adjudication Panel shall have the functions conferred or imposed on them by this subsection.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Panel to consider the findings of any investigation presented to them by the Investigation Panel with a view to taking one or more of the following courses of action:—
  The panel may, in an appropriate case—

  (a) dismiss the complaint or allegation; or

  (b) administer a reprimand to the solicitor; or

  (c) refer the case to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for hearing and determination; or

  (d) refer the case to the Arbitration Service for hearing and determination under subsection 9 of this section;

  (e) where the professional services provided by a solicitor in connection with any matter were in any respect not of the quality that could reasonably be expected of him as a solicitor,

  (i) determine that the costs to which the solicitor shall be entitled in respect of those services shall be limited to such amount as may he specified in their determination and direct the solicitor to comply, or to secure compliance, with such one or more requirements falling within paragraph (2) as appear to them to be necessary in order to give effect to their determination;

  (ii) direct the solicitor to secure the rectification, at the expense of the solicitor or his firm, of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the said matter as they may specify:

  (iii) direct the solicitor to take, at the expense of the solicitor or his firm, such other action in the interests of the client as they may specify.

  (f) The requirements referred to in subsection (e)(i) are—

  (i) a requirement to refund the whole or part or any amount already paid by or on behalf of the client in respect of the solicitor's cost in respect of the services referred to in that provision;

  (ii) a requirement to remit the whole or part of those costs;

  (iii) a requirement to waive, whether wholly or to any special extent, the right to recover those costs.

  (3) The Panel shall give notice of any action which it takes under paragraph (2), and of the grounds for any such action, to the complainant and to the Law Society.
  (4) Where it appears to the Panel—

  387

  (a) that any such allegation or complaint as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of subsection 4 ought to be referred to the Solicitor's Disciplinary tribunal for hearing and determination by that Tribunal; and

  (b) that it is necessary for the protection of the public to do so,
  the Panel may direct that any practising certificate held by the solicitor in question shall be suspended until the allegation or complaint is determined by the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal or until the expiration of such period as may be prescribed by rule made by the Board, whichever is the earlier.

  7.—(1) Subsection (2) of section 46 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) shall be amended to read as follows—
  "(2) The Master of the Rolls shall, after consultation with the Solicitors Complaints Board and with bodies representing the interests of consumers, appoint the members of the Tribunal."
  (2) After subsection (2) of section 46 of the Solicitors Act
  1974 (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) shall be inserted—
  "(2A) A person who is a member of the Council of the Law Society shall not be eligible to be a member of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal."
  8.—(1) The Board shall establish an Arbitration Service for the determination of cases arising out of a complaint to the Board in which compensation not exceeding £2,000 may be appropriately awarded.
  (2) The Arbitration Service shall be constituted as provided by the Board by rules made under this section.
  (3) Rules under paragraph (2)—

  (a) shall secure that a person who sits as a member of the Investigation Panel in the preliminary proceedings on any case shall not sit as a member of the Arbitration Service in any subsequent proceedings on that case; and

  (b) shall not come into force until approved by order of the Lord Chancellor.

  (4) The power to make orders under paragraph (3) shall be exercisable by Statutory Instruments subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and includes a power to vary or revoke such an order by subsequent order.
  9.—(1) The Arbitration Service shall have the functions conferred on them by this section.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Service to hear and determine any case referred to them under subsection 6 of this section.
  (3) Upon determining any such case as is referred to in paragraph (2) the Arbitration Service may—

  (a) award compensation to the complainant not exceeding £2,000; or

  (b) dismiss the case.

  (4) The Board may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, make rules providing for the procedure to be followed by the Arbitration Service when hearing and determining any such case as it mentioned in paragraph (2).
  (5) If it appears to the Lord Chancellor that there has been a change in the value of money since the date when this section comes into force, he may by Order made by Statutory Instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament substitute for the sum specified in sections 8(1) and 9(3) such sum as is the then equivalent of £2,000.'.—[Mr. Nicholas Brown.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 8—Council for Legal Services—
  '(1) For the purposes of Part I of this Act and the Solicitors' Act 1974 there shall be a body known as the Council for Legal Services.
  (2) It shall be the general duty of the Council to ensure that standards of quality of service which can reasonably be expected of solicitors and of professional conduct among solicitors are upheld and enforced and it shall assume all the powers of the Law Society under the Solicitors Act 1974 for that purpose.
  (3) Schedule 9 will have effect with respect to the Council.
  (4) The Council shall appoint an Ombudsman who shall have responsibility for

  (i) the investigation of complaints against solicitors in respect of quality of service and professional conduct

  (ii) promoting conciliation in appropriate cases

  (iii) unless falling within the jurisdiction of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal, in resolving complaints and applying the sanctions available to the Council under section of the Solicitors' Act 1974.

  (5) The Solicitors Act 1974 shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in Schedule 10.'.
  Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 4, leave out clause 1
  Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 19, leave out clause 2
  Amendment No. 18—New Schedule—

'THE SOLICITORS COMPLAINTS BOARD

  Status
  1. The Board shall be a body corporate.
  Constitution
  2.—(1) The Board shall consist of—

  (a) no more than 15 solicitors of at least ten years standing; and

  (b) no more than 10 lay persons.

  (2) Members of the Board who are solicitors shall be elected by a postal ballot of all solicitors holding a practising certificate at the time of the election.
  (3) Lay members of the Board shall be appointed by the Master of the Rolls after consultation with—

  (a) the Board;

  (b) relevant professional bodies; and

  (c) organisations representing the interests of consumers.

  (4) A member of the Council of the Law Society shall not be eligible to stand for election to the Board.
  3.—(1) During the initial period the Board shall consist of a chairman and not more than 15 members (at least 5 of whom shall be lay members) appointed by the Master of the Rolls.
  (2) In this paragraph the "initial period" means the period beginning with the establishment of the Board and ending immediately before the date fixed by the first scheme under subparagraph (3) for the coming into office of the first persons elected or nominated as members of the Board in accordance with the scheme.
  (3) The Board shall prepare a scheme making provision as to—

  (a) the election or nomination of persons for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 2(1).

  (b) the tenure and vacation of office of persons elected or nominated as aforesaid, and the eligibility of persons for election or nomination.

  (4) A scheme under sub-paragraph (3) shall not come into force until it has been approved by the Lord Chancellor and the first scheme shall be submitted to the Lord Chancellor for approval before the end of the period of one year beginning with the establishment of the Board.
  (5) The Master of the Rolls shall after consultation with the members of the Board appoint a Chairman of the Board to hold office for the period of one year.
  4.—(1) The Board shall have power to raise a levy on practising solicitors, which levy shall be charged on the issue or renewal of a practising certificate.
  (2) The levy referred to in sub-paragraph (1) shall be sufficient to meet the expenses of the Board incurred in the performance of their functions under this Act.

  Remuneration of members
  5. The Board shall have power to pay to the members of the Board or any of its committees such fees for attendance and such travelling, subsistence or other allowances as the Board may determine.
  Incidental powers
  6.The Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion is calculated to facilitate the proper discharge of its functions, including the borrowing of money.

  Officers and staff
  7.—(1) The Board shall have power to appoint such officers and servants as it may determine.
  (2) The Board shall pay to its officers and servants such remuneration as it may determine.
  (3) The Board shall, as regards any officers or servants in whose case it may determine to do so, pay to or in respect of them such pensions. allowances or gratuities, or provide and maintain for them such schemes (whether contributory or not) for the payment to or in respect of them of such pensions, allowances or gratuities, as it may determine.

  Committees of the Board
  8.—(1) The Board may establish a committee for any purpose (other than a purpose for which it is required to establish a committee by virtue of any provision of this Part) and may delegate to any committee established under this paragraph, with or without restrictions or conditions, as it thinks fit, the exercise of any function exercisable by the Board under this Part, not being—

  (a) a power to make rules, schemes or standing orders under this Part;

  (b) a function expressly conferred by this Part on any committee required to be established as aforesaid; or

  (c) subject to any express provision for delegation in the rules, a function expressly conferred on the Board by any rules under this Part.

  (2) The number of members of a committee established under this paragraph, and the terms on which they are to hold and vacate office, shall be fixed by the Board.
  (3) A committee established under this paragraph may include persons who are not members of the Board (whether licensed conveyancers or not), but a majority of the members of any such committee (including the Chairman) shall be members of the Board.

  Proceedings
  9.—(1) The powers of the Board and of any of its committees may be exercised nothwithstanding any vacancy, and no proceedings of the Board or of any of its committee shall be invalidated by any defect in the election or nomination of a member.
  (2) The Board may make standing orders for regulating the proceedings (including quorum) of the Board and of any of its committees.

  Accounts
  10.—(1) The Board shall keep proper accounts of all sums received or paid by it and proper records to those accounts.
  (2) The Board shall appoint auditors to the Board, each of whom shall be a member of one or more relevant bodies of accountants.
  (3) The Board shall cause their accounts to be audited annually by the auditors to the Board; and, as soon as is practicable after the accounts for any period have been audited, the Board shall cause them to be published and shall send a copy of them to the Lord Chancellor together with a copy of any report of the auditors thereon.'.
  Mr. Brown: On Second Reading and in Committee the Opposition made clear their view that part I was inadequate for its purpose. We are conscious of the improvements that the Government have made and we have taken care to draft the new clause so that we can retain the benefits of part I as it stands. The problem is that all the major anomalies which were pointed out on Second Reading remain. Part I will not deal with the widespread public dissatisfaction with the present system. The largest single grievance is that the legal profession controls the mechanism for dealing with complaints against it. The National Consumer Council's MORI poll revealed that only 3 per cent. of those polled thought that this was satisfactory. No matter what hon. Members feel about the accuracy of opinion polls, one would have to allow for a wide margin of error to interpret 3 per cent. in favour as a vote of confidence in the status quo.
  The new clause meets the point by setting up an independent body to deal with complaints. It will be professionally serviced by its own staff. The legal profession will have an important voice in its functioning. We are not anti the profession, but the solicitors will not
  390
  control this body. Thus, the public's objections will be met and the profession's reputation will be enhanced, because the public will have confidence in the complaints system.
  The public's second major grievance against the present mechanism is over the confusing variety of avenues of complaint. The intractable nature of the complaints procedure and the tremendous obstacles faced in securing any financial remedy for a grievance will combine to make the ordinary complainant feel that the legal profession is ganging up against him. The new clause provides a focus for complaints and the possibility of redress.
  It is difficult for a citizen to obtain advice and help when trying to come to grips with the negligence of his solicitor, and we provide for that. It is useless to point to the existence of the voluntary negligence panels. The Law Society has not bothered to monitor their performance, so we do not know how effective they have been. I have the experience of my constituents, whom I have tried to help, to guide me. My attitude is shaped by my practical experiences of the profession in Newcastle upon Tyne. I have no doubt that complainants are given the run around when they try to complain about solicitors. Whether that is the intention, or whether the present system makes it almost inevitable, I am not able to say. This injustice must be stopped, and our amendment does that.
  If the abuse is not remedied now, public pressure, and perhaps a change of Government—or at least a change of Lord Chancellor—will make the pressure for reform later almost inevitable. The new clause is based on the Solicitors (Independent Complaints Procedure) Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). I pay tribute to his pioneering work, which is very much appreciated not just by those who have the interests of the consumer at heart but by those who have the long-term interests of the profession at heart.
  The amendments have been altered from their original wording to take account of the Coopers and Lybrand findings and recommendations and to make them compatible with the Solicitors (Independent Complaints Procedure) Bill. The Opposition have been working from the draft Coopers and Lybrand report, which someone was good enough to send me in advance of publication, and perhaps in advance of potential dilution. I like to think that it was sent to me by the Lord Chancellor, but the Attorney-General tells me that that is unlikely, to put it at its nicest.
  The report tells the Law Society what the Opposition, the Legal Action Group and the National Consumer Council could have told it more cheaply. In short, the report says that the game is up. It urges an independent complaints procedure, a focus for complaints, a separation of the Law Society's trade union functions from its disciplinary ones, and arbitration. I was pleased that the report referred to the solicitors' trade union role in the same affectionate way as I referred to it in Committee.
  The report says some unkind things about the speed and responsiveness of the Law Society's complaints procedure. It found that there was "a substantial backlog" and that
  "the Professional Purposes Department was under-resourced and inadequately staffed."
  The report then criticised the department for its "extreme caution". Yet this is the institution in which, under part I of the Bill, the Government invite the general public to have continued confidence. The public will not have that confidence in it. They will rightly continue to feel cheated.

  391
  Perhaps the most worrying aspect is the Government's failure to develop a policy in advance of events. The pace of legislation has been dictated, not by the Government, but by the Law Society. The Government do not form a view until the Law Society has formed a view, which the Government then uncritically endorse. This is utterly craven. This wrong approach to reform has got the Government into the present mess. They are legislating in part I for the Law Society's last known view. However, the Law Society has just received a report from Coopers and Lybrand, which it commissioned, which says that the present view is wholly inadequate and untenable. On past form, when the Law Society changes its mind, the Government follow. It is therefore likely that we shall go over all this ground again and that the time of the House will have been wasted on part I.
  There is a way out for the Government. To provide this way out we, as a responsible, helpful and constructive Opposition, have tabled the new clause. It could be that there are those with professional interests who hope that part I, as it stands, will appease the complaints. There may be those who hope to lose the contents of our amendments and the Coopers and Lybrand recommendations by delay and obstruction—in short, by adopting the same tactics which those who complain about solicitors say are used against them.
  These proposals are our response to the present position. If that situation is allowed to deteriorate, due to neglect or deliberate obstruction, public pressure for a more thorough review of the Law Society's privileged position will become irresistible. I commend the new clause to the House and to the profession—in that order, not in the Government's order.
  Mr. Alf Dubs: Earlier this year, I introduced under the ten-minute Bill procedure the Solicitors (Independent Complaints Procedure) Bill. Leave to introduce the Bill was given by the House without any opposition. Although it provoked an enormous postbag of mail from all over the country, I have not had a single letter or representation other than in support of the Bill's aims. I mention that legislation because these amendments are directly based on it.
  I am grateful especially to the Legal Action Group but also to the National Consumer Council for their help in preparing the Bill and publicising it. There has been enormous support for that legislation. I have been astonished at the number of people who spoke to me, in the House and outside, and at the number of letters that I received not only from the very rich, who have complained bitterly about their solicitors, but from the very poor, whose lives have been seriously disrupted and damaged by disputes in which they believed that justice had not been done, although they complained about the solicitors who acted for them.
  Of course, complaints against solicitors come from a minority of people. The bulk of our constituents are satisfied with the service that they get from solicitors. I am not seeking in any way to denigrate the whole profession. Nevertheless, an important minority feel seriously aggrieved because of their dealings with the legal profession. They feel that they have not received justice and believe that the method by which they can complain against solicitors is inadequate. They want changes.
  392
  I appreciate that the Attorney-General is embarrassed about this part of the Bill, because the Coopers and Lybrand report has appeared at the wrong time for him. I do not want to tread too much on his toes and dwell on his embarrassment, but it is obvious that he must be embarrassed. In a sense, I am sorry that circumstances have conspired to make that so.
  The mystery surrounding the Coopers and Lybrand report puzzles me a little. I understand that it has been made available officially by the Law Society. I went into the House of Commons Library earlier today and asked whether it had a copy of the report. It assured me that it had not been able to obtain one from the Law Society. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has one, and I have three copies. They all arrived by mysterious means in brown envelopes from sources about which I am not clear. If the Attorney-General is short of a copy or two, I have three. I do not need them all. I am genuinely puzzled about why the Law Society, knowing that the Bill was going through the House, and knowing that the part of the Bill dealing, with complaints against solicitors was coming before the House, did not move a little faster. I have reason to believe that the report has officially been out for about a week. Despite that, it has not reached the House of Commons Library. The Law Society is adding to the Attorney-General's embarrassment. If he is cross about that, I can only say that I agree with him.
  8.30 pm
  The Coopers and Lybrand report seems to be a sensible document. It makes its main criticisms of the present arrangements concisely. I should like to quote from paragraph 20 (a), (b) and (c) because that summarises the fault of the present system which is not put right by part I but which would be put right if the amendments were to be accepted. The first point is:
  "A conflict of role arises if one body, in this case The Law Society, is responsible both for handling complaints against solicitors and for carrying out the full range of activities of a professional representative association".
  There is a contrast in the views of Ministers. They feel that there would be an unacceptable conflict of interest in regard to conveyancing if the same solicitor were to work for a bank or building society, yet they do not—unless I am going to be surprised later—share the view that there is an intolerable conflict of interest if the Law Society acts as a professional body on behalf of solicitors and investigates complaints against solicitors by members of the public.
  The second point made by the Coopers and Lybrand report is:
  "the distinctions made between the different types of complaints are confused and extremely difficult for the public to understand".
  The third point is:
  "the complaints handling process is slow, cumbersome, inefficient and unresponsive to change."
  The case for the amendments is contained within those three criticisms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East said, the amendments are based upon the Bill, that I introduced, but have been adjusted to give more direct effect to the Coopers and Lybrand report.
  It is essential to have an independent system for investigating complaints against solicitors. As has been made clear in the report, that would give a number of distinct benefits. First, if the suggested scheme were

  393
  adopted, there would be one focus for complaints. In other words, a member of the public who feels a sense of grievance would have only one place to go and could be satisfied that the complaint would be taken on from there. At the moment, the Law Society all too often says that it does not handle a complaint and it may suggest a different remedy to the complainant. The solicitor might be required to do the work again or to refund the money.
  Some of those benefits exist in the scheme provided in the Bill. The solicitor might be reprimanded. The complaint might be referred directly from the new complaints body to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal or there might be an arbitration scheme that would make recourse to the courts in negligence cases involving up to £2,000 unnecessary. The last point would be especially beneficial because a complainant who feels aggrieved by his previous experience of the legal profession and perhaps the courts will not be happy if he is told that he has a remedy and can go to the courts. Of course, there is the money involved. Legal aid might help. However, it will not appeal to the average person who feels a sense of grievance to suggest that he or she should go through the whole cumbersome procedure again and possibly incur the expenditure of significant sums of money. That is why I am keen on the arbitration scheme which is suggested in the amendment.
  There is another point of some importance which relates to a proposal contained in the Bill and which I think is unsatisfactory. I understand that, under the present scheme, the Law Society has a wide discretion to refuse to deal with a complaint. That is wrong. It is arbitrary and it may leave the complainant confused. Such a let-out would not be available to the new body dealing with complaints. It would be obliged to deal with all complaints. That proposal would be of immense benefit not just to the average member of the community who feels a sense of grievance but to the legal profession. I cannot think of a more invidious position for the legal profession to find itself in than the one in which it is now. There have been some notorious instances in which the complaints system, as handled by the Law Society, has completely broken down. I shall not take up the time of the House by repeating examples which have been mentioned previously.
  If the Law Society wishes to sustain the present position or if it believes that the small improvements contained in the Bill are adequate, it is in difficulties. I contend that the Bill is inadequate.
  If we pass the Bill and merely say, "Oh, well, we may get round to thinking about this again," we, shall be storing up trouble for ourselves. Even at this late hour in the Bill's life, the Attorney-General can say that he accepts the amendments. He has an alternative, which I put to him as a second best. The least that he can do is give a commitment that he will consider sympathetically the conclusions contained in the Coopers and Lybrand report with a view to early legislation. If the Attorney-General cannot do that, he is merely storing up difficulties for himself.
  An enormous body of opinion in this country feels that we need the changes. They are of interest to many people. Until such changes are brought about, and until we have an independent system of investigating complaints against solicitors, many of us and many other people will not be satisfied. If we leave the matter tonight without a commitment for the future, it will not be long before we
  394
  shall have to legislate again. It would be a pity to say that we will do nothing now, put off the day and have to do something in a few years' time. That is not good enough. We owe more to the people who would like to see changes.
  I hope that we can have some positive guidance from the Attorney-General. I hope that he will accept the amendments but, if not, I hope that he will give a clear commitment as to the action that he will take in the near future.
  Sir John Farr: I welcome new clause 4, which has a good deal of merit. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will carefully consider some of the suggestions that he has heard from the Opposition because, although the Law Society supports the improvement contained in the Bill, some of us believe that the present arrangements, even with the improved machinery included in the Bill, will not be adequate.
  I support the right of anyone to go to the complaints board. The complaints will then be referred to the investigating panel and to the adjudicating panel. That seems simple and straightforward.
  I am grateful to the Law Society for writing to me only last month to explain the safeguards that exist in the Bill and the improvement that the Bill would make to the existing system. Even with that strengthened system, I believe that in practice there will be manifest failings. I say that because in the Bill, and in the letter from the Law Society dated 5 June, there is not one word about delay. I have serious misgivings about the way in which the Law Society conducts its affairs, because of the almost endless delay and prevarication that an ordinary Member of Parliament experiences in trying to obtain some form of justice for his constituents.
  In the past 10 years, two of my constituents met with severe accidents involving head injury. In each case I had to approach the Law Society in trying to secure better compensation for them. I shall refer to my constituents as Mr. A and Mr. B.
  Mr. A, who was involved in a serious car accident, was awarded about £27,000 for his injuries. It was a handsome and fair award, but the solicitor who acted for Mr. A presented a bill for about £23,000. Luckily, that was spotted and the solicitor eventually sent my constituent a cheque for the overcharge of £23,000 in his bill because of "a clerical error", as he put it. That was a disgraceful case of deliberate overcharging of a man who was not mentally able to cope with his affairs for himself. That solicitor should have been prosecuted for criminal negligence. That is the course that the Law Society said that it was considering four or five years ago. Although Mr. A has received back the £23,000 overcharge, there is no sign of a prosecution taking place.
  Mr. B, who was also involved in a serious motor car accident, was awarded substantial damages of about £22,000. Again, that was a perfectly fair award. As with Mr. A, the machinery of the law proceeded in an adequate and normal way. But Mr. B's solicitors fell foul of the law by paying Mr. B directly £22,000 when he was manifestly mentally inadequate. In his mentally disabled state, Mr. B squandered the money and is now penniless. The solicitors handling Mr. B's case were in contravention of the law for, if a client is mentally incapacitated, they have a duty not to give him the money directly, as he is not able to be responsible for his actions. I sent particulars of that case to the Law Society between five and 10 years ago.

  395
  The last letter I had from the society was this week. I was reminded that the long recess was due and that the society hoped in due course to let me have counsel's opinion on whether the firm in question should be prosecuted.
  In dealing with those two cases I met with extreme lack of interest, prevarication and blocking on the part of the Law Society. As far as I can see, it will be another 10 years or so before the obvious action will be taken. For that reason, if I have the chance to do so, I shall support the new clause.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The Glanville Davies case was an ill wind but it did a good deal of good. It swept like a hurricane through the Law Society in Chancery lane, and I believe that one of the most interesting results of that case is that it has actually changed attitudes among solicitors.
  In paragraph 41 of the Coopers and Lybrand report, in which I think the authors are referring particularly to their contacts among solicitors, they say:
  "We have found widespread agreement with our broad conclusion that complaints handling should be transferred from The Society to a new and regulatory body separate from and independent of The Law Society".
  They go on to say:
  "We have much less agreement about the nature and functions of the new body—not least because many had thought up to, but not beyond, the need for complaints handling to be independent of The Society."
  However, it is not beyond the wit of man and not even beyond the wit of Government—even of this Government—that some means might be devised, and devised very quickly, to provide the independent procedure needed for dealing with complaints against solicitors.
  It is notable that other professions and other bodies have already devised independent disciplinary procedures. The accountancy profession, which had to deal with the difficulty of being a profession split into different parts, has recently established a joint disciplinary scheme which applies to all members of four professional associations participating in the scheme. The scheme provides procedures for investigating the professional and business conduct of accountants of the four different types. The procedure enables their efficiency and their competence to be investigated in questions which give rise to public concern.
  It is fundamentally offensive that the Law Society should carry out the two functions of representing solicitors and regulating solicitors. It is not necessary to expand the arguments beyond those broad but important professions of principle—a principle which, I believe, is widely held on both sides of the House. We would hope to hear tonight from the Attorney-General that the Government have not only taken note of the Coopers and Lybrand report—as, of course, they have—but have decided that in the next Session of Parliament, within the next few months, there will be legislation giving expression to that widespread agreement to which I referred in quoting from paragraph 41 of the report.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The great majority of the solicitors—the collective noun is a "charge" of solicitors—who were present on the Government Benches during the debate on conveyancing, when the Government's mind was still open and the solicitors were wanting to close it
  396
  in a direction favourable to their interests, have now disappeared. I take it that that means that on this matter the Government have made up their mind and will not accept our new clauses. Nevertheless, it is still important to argue the case for the amendment, in the best interests of the legal profession itself.
  My concern is for a profession which serves the public in all its problems, defends all its rights, and even puts the public interest and serving the public above its vested interest as a cosy profession. It is because of that emphasis that the Government should act in the profession's own best interest and accept the new clauses.
  There is a sad contrast between the Government's behaviour on this matter and on conveyancing, and it is important to draw attention to that. When it comes to banks and building societies doing conveyancing, conflict of interest becomes paramount—so important that it can obviate the principle in the eyes of some. The Lord Chancellor can selfishly argue that one has to defend the income of solicitors because one does not want to pay more fees in legal aid to them. Conflict of interest there is all-important. But when we come to complaints against solicitors, where there is a real conflict of interest, it is ignored by the Government. That conflict is real and palpable and is felt by the public.
  The Law Society cannot act as a trade union defending the vested interests of its members and as custodian of the public interest serving and dealing with complaints by the public. It cannot be judge, jury and accused in its own case. There is a real conflict of interest. If the Government regard conflict of interest as so important, why do they not do something about it and accept our new clauses, which get round the problem? The Coopers and Lybrand report makes clear in paragraph 23 what a conflict of interest is. It says:
  "some consider that The Society's complaints handling and representational roles are inherently in conflict, whatever arrangements are devised to minimise the conflict in individual cases; they are concerned that, despite rigorous efforts to eliminate conflict in those cases, there will still be cases in which it will occur. From our programme of interviews and consultations, we are impressed by the widespread perception of, and concern over, this basic conflict, both among members of the profession and among outsiders."
  The question of conflict of interest is obsessive. Why will the Government not do anything about it? Our new clauses get round the problem. All Members who speak on legal issues are deluged with complaints about solicitors. One can understand some of the complaints, because people who lose do not like losing. But many of the complaints are about shoddy workmanship, inattention and inefficiency. They are justified complaints from which there is no redress. The Bill, as it stands, does not provide adequate redress. The Government will be serving the public well if they accept the new clauses.
  Part I of the Bill is not satisfactory. There is no mention of a concrete code of written professional standards. The boundary between negligence and inadequate professional work is not defined. The Law Society is given wide discretion to deal with complaints, or to refuse to deal with complaints, and the shoddy work jurisdiction is almost entirely in the hands of the society. All that is wrong.
  More important, events have overtaken the Bill and we are legislating nonsense. The report from Coopers and Lybrand manifestly says that the Bill is inadequate and that there has to be independent machinery. That is what we are proposing in the new clauses. Yet the Government are

  397
  determined to press on in the face of their own inadequacies. They are closing the case for legislation for at least two or three years, and giving us a stopgap measure which has been rejected by the society's own advisers.
  I am aware that part I comes directly from the Law Society. Speaking as the political arm of the Law Society, the Lord Chancellor says that part I was requested by the society, and he is inclined to listen only to the society in this kind of case. That is an interesting comment on the source of the legislation. The Law Society's own management consultants, Coopers and Lybrand, say the proposals are inadequate and therefore the Government have a responsibility to think again. They should not push this House into nonsensical legislation which has been bypassed by events.
  The Government will doubtless say that they want time to consult, but there was no consultation over part I before it was put into the Bill. In any case, consultation could take years, bearing in mind the way the profession functions. Coopers and Lybrand referred to an unacceptable gap of 11 years in the preparation by the society of a new guide to professional conduct. If that is the speed of consultation, it would be far better to do what we are proposing, which is to lay down the basic guidelines by way of the new clauses and to allow consultation to take place on how the basic guidelines are to be operated and filled in.
  Parliament has a clear mandate from the public to act by ensuring that the new legislation is not nonsense. That is what it will be if we pass it unchanged. It should be not a stopgap, but legislation which will fulfil a public need. There is strong public feeling. All the opinion polls and our own correspondence show that. We need an independent review procedure for complaints. If the Bill is passed unamended, people will feel that Parliament is once again ignoring the public interest and getting into cahoots with a privileged profession in order to protect that profession from the standards of impartiality and independent review which are maintained in every aspect of life and in all other professions.
  The Attorney-General: The canard was repeated by the hon. Member for Newcastle on Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I assure him that there is no mole in ermine in this building, and that includes the Lord Chancellor. I suspect I know who it was.
  We had a valuable contribution from the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), and all of us respect his work on this subject. I have expressed my admiration for him before, and I repeat it tonight. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that if the Library does not have the Coopers and Lybrand report it must be because it does not take the Law Society's Gazette, because it was published as a supplement to the Gazette on 10 July and was therefore available to anybody who needed it.
  I wish that I could give to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) the undertaking that within a few months we will introduce legislation. I cannot do that, for reasons which I shall explain in a little detail.
  My old friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) invented yet another phrase—a charge of solicitors—which tempts me to think that he is the grouser of Great Grimsby. I hope that he will not sue me for that.
  I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a little time, because this is an important subject and deserves to be dealt with in proper detail. It has been helpful to have
  398
  this opportunity so early after the publication of the report to debate the proposals for an independent solicitors complaints board, as reflected in the new clauses and in another way in the Coopers and Lybrand report, or what it calls the exposure draft of its report.
  Before Opposition Members get too carried away with enthusiasm for immediate change, I must inject a note of caution. The first warning must be that whatever legislative changes might be needed to give effect to such proposals, they cannot be included in this Bill. It is far too late, even if there were settled policy, to formulate the additional clauses which would be needed to make the changes suggested in the Opposition new clauses or by Coopers and Lybrand. Not only would there need to be several new provisions to set up a solicitors complaints board, to describe its functions in detail and to prescribe its constitution, but there would have to be a line-by-line examination of the 80 or so sections of the Solicitors Act 1974 to see what should be removed, what retained and what amended. Therefore, the new clauses are defective, although I do not complain about that. I admire the huge amount of work that must have gone into them, and congratulate hon. Members on what they did.
  9 pm
  This debate will be helpful in assisting the Law Society in its deliberations on the report—we have already heard conflicting views, as one would expect, from the council of the Law Society—and the House will agree. on reflection, that rushed and ill-thought-out legislation is something that we would live to regret.
  We are considering an exposure draft—a first report—as only one element in the first phase of the fundamental review of the society's functions and organisation now in hand. We must await the further reports from the management consultants on the other matters within their terms of reference. We must consider structure, staffing and systems, which have been expressly reserved by Coopers and Lybrand for later phases of the review, as is consideration of the society's representational functions and its role in legal aid administration. All those matters deserve careful consideration, and even if the society can form rapid decisions following the end of the consultation period in October—which I suspect is unlikely—if would be foolish then to press for early legislation and, therefore, miss the opportunity to take account of later proposals, which, in a sense, is the reverse of the accusations made against us in carrying on with part I.
  The Coopers and Lybrand report proposes that a solicitors complaints board independent of the Law Society be created with the duty of investigating all complaints against solicitors. A central theme is that the new board would provide a one-door entry point for all complaints against solicitors., having power to impose sanctions in respect of less serious cases, but being able to pass on the more serious cases of misconduct and negligence to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal and the courts. That approach is only one option for change. The society, being rightly anxious to encourage as wide-ranging a debate as possible, has identified some alternative options. It might, for example, be possible to satisfy public concern through the creation of separate committees within the Law Society with responsibility for the investigation of, and the adjudication on, complaints against solicitors. It seems right that such alternative

  399
  approaches be considered. Whether we can accept them is another matter. The society has also identified some potential difficulties outlined in the Coopers and Lybrand report.
  Those considering the report will no doubt wish to make an especially close analysis of the wide variety of factors which it brings together. The consultants—naturally enough, perhaps, having regard to the nature of their exercise—have tended to concentrate on the society's functions when considering possible improvements in the system for handling complaints. But this ignores the fact that the society is only one of three bodies with major functions in this area, and—hitherto, at least—has been exercising very much a subordinate jurisdiction when compared with the courts and the solicitors disciplinary tribunal.
  We shall always have problems between any new body and the negligence jurisdiction of the courts, bearing in mind the real and immediate danger of prejudice to clients' interests. We must think carefully about the extent to which a single point of entry can work in this area. Further thought may need to be given to the relationships with the quality control aspects of taxation and remuneration certificate procedure. We may need additional consideration of the role of a lay observer, given the presence of lay representatives on the proposed new body. We must also consider accountability: to whom should that new body be accountable?
  Those are some of the clearly difficult issues that must be resolved before the Government can invite the House to consider legislation for changes. The report acknowledges that there are no absolute answers here and that these are matters for judgment. It acknowledges that much existing criticism may relate to appearance as much as to reality. It refers to
  "a wider issue of public confidence, by no means confined to the Law Society, in the accountability of professional associations and the means of disciplining their members."
  The criticisms that have been made of the lack of independent elements within the existing system disregard the part at present played by the solicitors disciplinary tribunal as a statutory body, independent of the Law Society, and the lay observer as an independent check on the society's handling of complaints against solicitors. Thus, even on the fundamental principle of an independent body, there is clearly more than one view. In his recently published report, the lay observer—and I shall not quote it all—made it quite clear that he took a contrary view, so the opinion, although it may so appear from the debate today, does not in fact lie all in the same direction. After the recent events in Wales, I think that we are now a little more suspicious of MORI polls than we were before. Therefore, the MORI polls which were quoted previously must be considered with a little suspicion.
  The response to the consultation exercise which has now been embarked upon will assist the society in reaching informed decisions on all the matters raised in the Coopers and Lybrand report. It is right that the Government should wait until such time as this process is complete before forming a view of their own, but I assure the House that the Government have a completely open mind about whether a complaints system independent of the Law Society best suits the public interest.
  400
  I come to the points that were made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. This is really an approach from a different angle, based on the report of the National Consumer Council. It is getting to very much the same end by rather different means. The points that I have made, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, as a lawyer, about the Coopers and Lybrand report apply equally to him. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not go into great detail, because in a sense I would merely be repeating what I have said before. Whichever suggestion one takes—the Coopers and Lybrand report, which is merely the first stage of a much more detailed analysis, or the National Consumer Council report—these are matters which obviously need a great deal more consultation, and I am sure that, on reflection, the House would be the first to agree that hastily rushed through legislation does great harm in the end.
  Part I contains a number of real benefits for the client. I would hate in any way to delay those, because, if we cannot have all that we want today, for the reasons that I have given, part I provides more safeguards for the public, which the House will generally welcome.
  Mr. Dubs: The Attorney-General has been a little enigmatic. He says that the Government are completely open-minded about the possibility of an independent system for investigating such complaints. Can he give the House some idea of the possible time scale, on the assumption that this open-mindedness on the Government's part comes to an end and the Coopers and Lybrand report proves to be persuasive?
  The Attorney-General: I think that I made it clear. We obviously must have the complete series of reports from Coopers and Lybrand. On the existing report, there is a consultation period ending in October. We shall want to see what the Law Society and others concerned say. It may well be that the bulk of opinion will be on the lines of Coopers and Lybrand. I want to have the other reports, because Coopers and Lybrand has reserved certain matters, to which I referred, for later reports. We do not want to have two bites at the cherry. Indeed, we have already been accused of having two bites.
  We shall have to consider carefully the existing law about solicitors contained in the Solicitors Act 1974. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no deliberate holding back by the Government. We shall move as fast as we can, but he will appreciate, as will all hon. Members, the difficulty in getting such matters into the programme of a coming Session. There is always great competition to include Bills. I give him the undertaking that there will be no feet dragging of any kind.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Attorney-General's reply was disappointing, though not unexpectedly so. We appreciate the Government's difficulties, even embarrassment, in this area. However, we feel it important to show the Law Society that Opposition Members mean business and we shall, therefore, press the matter to a Division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided. Ayes 145, Noes 233.

  Division No. 281]

  [9.9 pm

  AYES

  Ashton, Joe

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Beggs, Roy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Beith, A. J.

  Barnett, Guy

  Benn, Tony

  401

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

  John, Brynmor

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Lamond, James

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Lead bitter, Ted

  Buchan, Norman

  Leighton, Ronald

  Caborn, Richard

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Litherland, Robert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Livsey, Richard

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Loyden, Edward

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cohen, Harry

  McGuire, Michael

  Conlan, Bernard

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McKelvey, William

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Corbett, Robin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cowans, Harry

  McTaggart, Robert

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  McWilliam, John

  Craigen, J. M.

  Madden, Max

  Crowther, Stan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Martin, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maynard, Miss Joan

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Deakins, Eric

  Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)

  Dewar, Donald

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dixon, Donald

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dobson, Frank

  Nellist, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Nicholson, J.

  Douglas, Dick

  O'Brien, William

  Dubs, Alfred

  O'Neill, Martin

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Park, George

  Eastham, Ken

  Parry, Robert

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpfn SE)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Ewing, Harry

  Penhaligon, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Pike, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Prescott, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Redmond, M.

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fisher, Mark

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Flannery, Martin

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Forrester, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Foster, Derek

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Snape, Peter

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Soley, Clive

  Hardy, Peter

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Strang, Gavin

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Torney, Tom

  Hogg, N, (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Wainwright, R.

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Wallace, James

  Home Robertson, John

  Wareing, Robert

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Winnick, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Woodall, Alec

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Hughes, Simon (Southward)

  Mr. Sean Hughes.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Ancram, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Tom

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Ashby, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bendall, Vivian

  402

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Grylls, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Blackburn, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hannam, John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

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

  Harris, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hayes, J.

  Bright, Graham

  Hayward, Robert

  Brinton, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hickmet, Richard

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Browne, John

  Hirst, Michael

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Holt, Richard

  Budgen, Nick

  Howard, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

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

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Cash, William

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hunter, Andrew

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Irving, Charles

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jessel, Toby

  Chope, Christopher

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Colvin, Michael

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Coombs, Simon

  Key, Robert

  Cope, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Corrie, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Couchman, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Critchley, Julian

  Knowles, Michael

  Crouch, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lang, Ian

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Latham, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dover, Den

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Durant, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Favell, Anthony

  Luce, Richard

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fletcher, Alexander

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Forman, Nigel

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

  Fox, Marcus

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Franks, Cecil

  Major, John

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Freeman, Roger

  Mather, Carol

  Fry, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gale, Roger

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Galley, Roy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Merchant, Piers

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Gow, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gregory, Conal

  Moore, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Ground, Patrick

  Murphy, Christopher

  403

  Neale, Gerrard

  Rost, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Newton, Tony

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Shersby, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Sims, Roger

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Osborn, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stern, Michael

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood

  Parris, Matthew

  Stokes, John

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Porter, Barry

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Viggers, Peter

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Price, Sir David

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Raffan, Keith

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Renton, Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

  AMENDMENT OF ARBITRATION ACT 1950
  `In paragraph (b) of section 7 of the Arbitration Act 1950 (party fails to appoint an arbitrator), the words after "appoint an arbitrator" to the end of the paragraph shall be replaced by the words "or does not do so within the time specified in the agreement or, if no time is specified, within a reasonable time, the other party to the agreement, having appointed his arbitrator, may serve the party in default with a written notice to appoint an arbitrator and, if the appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice, the High Court or a judge thereof may, on the application of the party who gave the notice, appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the party in default who shall have the like power to act in the reference and make an award as if had been appointed in accordance with the terms of the agreement.".'.—[Mr. Ottaway]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Clause 57 blocks a loophole in the law of arbitration but creates an inconsistency. The clause is welcome in that it stops people being able to avoid appointing an arbitrator and therefore to avoid having a properly constituted arbitration panel but, as those who follow the debate on clause 57 in Committee will be aware, I was anxious that its approach was wrong in that it provided for a court appointment of a replacement arbitrator. I thought that a somewhat surprising decision in view of the weight of opinion of people in the arbitration profession who went to the Department of Trade and Industry to make their case. It is regrettable that their views did not prevail.
  As a result of clause 57, section 10 of the Arbitration Act 1950 is inconsistent with section 7 of that Act. Section 7 provides that, when parties have agreed to refer a dispute to two arbitrators as umpire, in the event of default in the appointment of one of the arbitrators, a properly constituted panel becomes a sole arbitrator. Clause 57
  404
  provides that when there is a default in the appointment of an arbitrator, there are three arbitrators, and the second is appointed by the court. That is bad law and, inconsistent and should be remedied.
  In Committee, I tried to provide consistency with section 7 of the 1950 Act but my proposal was rejected on three grounds. I should like to consider the arguments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General used to reject my proposal. First, he said that a fundamental requirement was that the clause should provide that a dispute should be settled by a three-man arbitration tribunal. I have managed to comply with that requirement by providing in the new clause for a three-man arbitration tribunal. Secondly, he said that it was important for such a clause to have the blessing of the United Nations Committee on International Trade Law and that clause 53 should be in line with the model clause on arbitration. Again, I have got over that hurdle by providing in the new clause for a three-man arbitration panel, which is consistent with the UNCITRAL model code.
  The most important point, however, is that the Government took the advice of Mr. Justice Mustill. To quote again my right hon. and learned Friend, he said:
  "Mr. Justice Mustill is probably the greatest expert on the law of arbitration … Mr. Justice Mustill is probably the leading expert of all time in this respect.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 July 1985, c. 196.]
  I am happy to accept my right hon. and learned Friend's view of Mr. Justice Mustill. It is unfortunate that in Committee we did not have before us a letter dated 26 February 1985 from Mr. Justice Mustill to Lord Hacking. Referring to sections 7 and 10 of the Arbitration Act 1950, he said:
  "We accept that section 7 provides a precedent for party-appointment. There is, however, much to be said for the view that it is an anomaly, which should not be perpetuated. The Advisory Committee will have to look at sections 7, 10 and 25 together, since they do not really add up."
  The unfortunate point about clause 57 is that it does not take Mr. Justice Mustill's advice but looks in isolation at section 10. All I am seeking to do in the new clause is to follow Mr. Justice Mustill's advice by taking sections 7 and 10 together. I have adopted in my new clause the Government's wording of clause 57. Having deployed my right hon. and learned Friend's arguments in Committee and having adopted the Government's wording in the new clause, I hope that he will be able to accept it.
  The Attorney-General: I admire my hon. Friend's great ingenuity, but I am afraid that I still have to disappoint him. I appreciate that his approach is consistent and unobjectionable but the problem is that it goes beyond the intention of clause 57, which was designed to fill a specific gap in the Arbitration Act that had been identified by the Mustill committee on a temporary basis—I emphasise "on a temporary basis"—prior to consideration by the departmental advisory committee on arbitration for the reform of arbitration law in the light of the UNCITRAL model. The solution chosen in clause 57 was recommended by the sub-committee and it was adopted in the UNCITRAL model law. As yet there is no evidence that section 7 is creating difficulties for arbitrators but the ingenuity shown by my hon. Friend will be drawn to the attention of the sub-committee.
  Mr. Ottaway: Although I am somewhat disappointed, I am reassured by the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend that the matter will be looked at. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

  PREPARATION OF CONVEYANCING DOCUMENTS BY UNQUALIFIED PERSONS
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 9, at end insert—
  '(5) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
  "(4) A local weights and measures authority may institute proceedings for an offence under this section.".'.
  In Committee I undertook to introduce an amendment to empower trading standards departments, which formerly were known, probably inappropriately, as weights and measures authorities, to undertake prosecutions for breaches of section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974. This amendment gives effect to that undertaking. For some time, the arrangements for prosecuting illegal conveyancers have been regarded as unsatisfactory. The Royal Commission on legal services recommended that the Law Society should cease to undertake such prosecutions. No statutory requirement is imposed on the Law Society to do that, and it has assumed responsibility rather by default. That has given rise to presentational difficulties, because it has not been sufficiently recognised that when the Law Society initiates such prosecutions, it is not being selfish and acting in its own interests, but is acting to protect the public.
  We have been exploring alternatives and it has been agreed that local trading standards departments should take responsibility in this area. That seems to be a sensible move.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

  INCORPORATED PRACTICES
  Amendments made: No. 5 in page 11, line 17, leave out
  `of that Act shall also'
  and insert
  ',or (as the case may be) section 23(1), of that Act shall'.
  No. 6, in page 11, line 24, at end insert
  'or (as the case may be) under the said section 23.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 14

  ISSUE OF LICENCES BY COUNCIL
  9.30 pm
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 15, line 38, at end insert—
  '(4A) Where—

  (a) an application for a licence is made in accordance with section 13 by a person who, at the date of the application, already holds a licence under this Part; and

  (b) no new licence is issued to him in pursuance of the application before the time when his existing licence would, apart from this subsection, expire in accordance with subsection (4),
  his existing licence shall not expire at that time but shall continue in force until a new licence is issued to him in pursuance of the application or, if the application is refused by the Council—

  406

  (i) until the end of the period within which an appeal may be 'Drought against the refusal under section 28(1)(a); or

  (ii) if such an appeal is brought, until the appeal is determined or abandoned.'.

  Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendments Nos. 10, 13, 19 and 21 to 24.
  The Attorney-General: In Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) moved an amendment to clause 11 designed to ensure that licensed conveyancers should not be prevented from practising when their application to renew an existing licence was not dealt with in time by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. I undertook to bring forward an amendment to cover the point.
  As so often happens, while we were considering the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, other issues arose which are covered by the amendments grouped with No. 9. Two remove from the council the power to revoke recognition of a body corporate on the grounds of fraud or error and enable the discipline and appeals committee, which is a much better body, to exercise that power. That fits in with the respective roles of the council and the committee under part II.
  Two other amendments introduce a right of appeal against refusals to grant recognition to bodies corporate, whether of licensed conveyancers or of solicitors. An amendment to schedule 3 ensures that the council's rule-making powers regarding proceedings before the discipline and appeals committee is sufficiently flexible.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 10, in page 16, line 1, leave out
  'of expiry of his previous licence'
  and insert
  'when his previous licence expired in accordance with subsection (4) (or would have so expired but for subsection (4A))'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 31
  PROVISION OF CONVEYANCING SERVICES BY RECOGNISED BODIES
  Amendment made: No. 13, in page 29, leave out lines 26 to 28.—[The Attorney-General.]
Clause 68

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 56, line 28, leave out 'and 55 to 64' and insert ', 55 to 61 and 63 and 64'.
  This is a technical amendment to the commencement provisions, correcting the reference to the sections that will come into force two months after Royal Assent.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

  INCORPORATED PRACTICES SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendment made: No. 19, in page 60, line 26, at end insert—
  Appeal against refusal of Council to grant recognition
  1A.—(1) Where the Council refuse an application by any body corporate for recognition under section 8 of this Act, that body may appeal to the Master of the Rolls against that refusal within one month of being notified of it.
  (2) On an appeal under this paragraph the Master of the Rolls may—

  (a) direct the Council to grant recognition of the body in question under section 8 of this Act; or

  (b) affirm the refusal of the Council;
  and he may make such order as to the payment of costs by the Council or by that body as he thinks fit.

  (3) Rules made by the Council with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls may make provision, as respects any application for recognition that is neither granted nor refused by the Council within such period as may be specified in the rules, for enabling an appeal to be brought under this paragraph in relation to the application as if it had been refused by the Council.
  (4) The Master of the Rolls may make regulations about the procedure for appeals to him under this paragraph.'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule 4

  THE DISCIPLINE AND APPEALS COMMITTEE: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendment made: No. 21, in page 75, line 41, leave out from 'relation' to end of line 8 on page 76 and insert
  'to proceedings before the Discipline and Appeals Committee under this Part.
  (2) As respects proceedings before the Committee under section 25,'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule 6
  BODIES RECOGNISED UNDER S.3I: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 22, in page 85, line 26, at end insert—

  'Revocation of recognition on grounds of fraud or error
  6A.—(1) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee are satisfied that the recognition of a body corporate under section 31 was granted as a result of any error, or as a result of fraud on the part of that body, the Committee may, if they think fit, by order revoke that body's recognition.
  (2) A body corporate may be granted recognition under that section notwithstanding that any recognition previously granted to it has been evoked under this paragraph; but if any such recognition was so revoked on the ground of fraud that body shall not be granted recognition under that section except on an application made in that behalf to the Committee.

  Appeal against decision of Council in relation to grant of recognition
  6B.—(1) Where, in the case of any body corporate, the Council—

  (a) refuses an application by that body for recognition under section 31; or

  (b) decides to grant recognition of that body under that section subject to any restrictions,
  that body may appeal to the Discipline and Appeals Committee against that refusal or decision within one month of being notified of it.

  (2) On an appeal under this paragraph the Discipline and Appeals Committee may—

  (a) by order direct the Council to grant recognition of the body in question under section 31, either without restrictions or subject to such restrictions falling within subsection (3)(d) of that section as may be specified by the Committee in the direction; or

  (b) affirm the refusal or decision of the Council;
  and the Committee may make such order as to the payment of costs by the Council or by that body as they think fit.

  (3) Rules made by the Council may make provision, as respects any application for recognition that is neither granted nor
  408
  refused by the Council within such period as may be specified in the rules, for enabling an appeal to be brought under this paragraph in relation to the application as if it had been refused by the Council.'.
  No. 23, in page 85, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
  No. 24, in page 85, line 33, after 'Paragraphs', insert '1(2),'.—[The Attorney-General.]
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 86, line 10, leave out
  'that Part of that Schedule'
  and insert
  'Part II of Schedule 5'.
  This is a minor drafting amendment which corrects an insufficiently clear reference in schedule 6.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9
  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
  Amendment made: No. 27, in page 91, line 25, at end insert—

  'Restriction on preparation of papers for probate etc.
  5A. Where a person has committed an offence under section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974 before the commencement of section [Preparation of papers for probate etc. by unqualified persons] of this Act, he shall not be liable after that commencement to be proceeded against in respect of that offence unless the act constituting that offence would have constituted an offence under section 23, as substituted by section [Preparation of papers for probate etc. by unqualified persons] of this Act, if it had been in force at the time when the act was done.'.—[The Attorney-General.]
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]
  9.33 pm
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am grateful for the high quality of our debates tonight, and, in particular, in Committee. As so often happens, the criticisms made of the Bill relate generally not to what is in the Bill, but to what people think should have been it it.
  As is so often the case when the Government introduce change, far from satisfying the reforming element in us, it serves only to increase the appetite for more. We have been asked to move immediately towards the establishment of an independent body to deal with complaints against solicitors, and we have spent a good deal of time discussing whether banks and building societies should be permitted to offer services. The House will have the opportunity to return to both those issues in due course. The Coopers and Lybrand review of the Law Society is still in its early stages. We await with interest the developments in that area as the exercise progresses. Legislation to enable the Lord Chancellor to exempt bodies corporate from the restrictions on conveyancing will be introduced next Session. I am sure that many hon. Members present tonight will reappear then to air their views on how those powers should be exercised.
  The provisions of the Bill are familiar to hon. Members. The speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House have been largely constructive and helpful, and the Bill has undoubtedly been greatly improved by all

  409
  our efforts. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I are grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), and to all those who have played a part in tonight's debate for their assistance, and for the good will which has coloured our proceedings. I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: In concluding my speech on Second Reading, I said that the Bill was more to be commended for effort than for achievement. The Bill is an under-achiever, and many hon. Members may eventually feel that it was not worth the effort. I have no doubt that part I will not stand the test of time. Part II timidly and cautiously introduces the new profession of the licensed conveyancer. We wish the new profession well, and believe that it will benefit the consumer. However, the question of in-house work by building societies remains unresolved.
  I noticed, as did many hon. Members, that the long title of the Bill is drawn wide. At one stage I considered introducing an amendment to set a statutory retiring age for Lord Chancellors. However, I must not refer to what is not in the Bill, which is frustrating, as most matters which should be in the Bill are not.
  Despite the issues that divide us, and the occasional charges of vested interest and counter-charges of ignorance, the Report stage, like the Committee stage, was reasonably good natured. In that spirit I shall draw my remarks to a close by putting in a kind word for the Attorney-General. He has had his problems in recent legal affairs debates, and the Opposition have always sought to help him constructively. Recently he had to respond to the loss of the disreputable original clause 22 from the Prosecution of Offences Bill and the equally disreputable original clause 43 from this Bill when both clauses were defeated in the other place. He had to explain why the Government retreated from their original promise to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on banks and building societies, and he had to defend part I of the Bill, which has been superseded by events. In Committee, he could advance only the worst of arguments to defend the present state of our defamation laws—that he could not afford to change them because of the cost. He was clearly embarrassed by the lack of coherence in the present state of law centres.
  I shall now come to the good word. To all those points the Attorney-General's ultimate response was, as it had to be, "I am only the agent of the Lord Chancellor." To be fair to the Attorney-General, that is the only respectable excuse available to him.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Cash: I am glad to have taken part in the proceedings, and I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for the courtesy that he has shown throughout. I wish the Bill well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  Rates (Edinburgh)
  9.39 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
  That the Rate Reduction (City of Edinburgh District) 1985–86 Report, which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.
  I should like to start by setting the action that we have taken against Edinburgh in the context of our policies on local authority expenditure as a whole and then set out the reasons why we have taken action against Edinburgh this year.
  On any measure, local authority expenditure is a significant feature of the economy. What Scottish local authorities spend accounts for half the programme of public expenditure in Scotland for which I am responsible. In the United Kingdom as a whole, local authority expenditure accounts for a quarter of public expenditure. Given the range of services provided by local authorities, this is not surprising, but it does emphasise the fact that no Government can leave local authority expenditure out of their economic calculations. I do not think that Labour Members would disagree with that. Certainly their policies when last in office confirm that they agree with us that local authority expenditure cannot be ignored and has to be controlled in the pursuit of national economic aims.
  Local authority expenditure in total is still too high. It is still above the level it was when we came to office, although I am glad that increasing numbers of authorities are now reducing their expenditure and budgeting to spend within guidelines. In 1984–85, 15 authorities budgeted to spend within guidelines. This year, the number is 30, and I hope to see continued improvements.
  The problem of local authority expenditure is increasingly becoming a problem of a small group of authorities. If we look at this year's overspenders, of which there were 35, 12 were within 3 per cent. of guideline and 16 were within 6 per cent. Of the remaining seven all except one were within 8·1 per cent. of guideline All these 34 authorities have of course suffered grant penalties but, under the new improved arrangements that we have introduced, if they bring their spending down to guideline at outturn, they will have their penalty returned. There is no reason why this money should be lost to ratepayers if authorities take action now and reduce their expenditure.
  The exception to this pattern of overspending is Edinburgh district council with its massive overspend against guideline of 48 per cent. On any test this planned expenditure is excessive and unreasonable and action simply has to be taken in the interests of the city's ratepayers. However, before I turn to the details of the case against Edinburgh, I should like to trace briefly the history of the term "excessive and unreasonable" as applied to local authority expenditure and linked to the power to take selective action.
  Although the origins of the power are in the local government legislation of 1929, the power to take action against an individual local authority on the grounds of excessive and unreasonable expenditure, and on which, in amended form, we are taking action against Edinburgh, is set out in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. It is therefore a measure put on the statute book by Labour Members when they were in power. We have, of course,

  411
  amended and improved it so that we can operate on planned expenditure and return the savings to the ratepayers. However, the basic concept of selective action is contained within legislation for which the Labour party was responsible and for which the ratepayers are. I am sure, grateful.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling the House that the guidelines had statutory backing in 1966?
  Mr. Younger: No, I did not refer to guidelines. I merely pointed out that the ability to take selective action for excessive and unreasonable expenditure was proudly introduced by a Labour Government. It may be significant that the Minister who introduced that measure has since joined the Social Democratic party. I leave it to the Opposition to judge whether that has any significance.
  We have initiated selective action on 14 occasions. The total of savings achieved over the years is over £80 million and there have been significant benefits to ratepayers. For instance, the rate of Lothian regional council went down by 25 per cent. over two years. It is, of course, a power to be used only when an authority is clearly planning excessive and unreasonable expenditure. Last year, no authority fell into that category. This year, one authority has stood out and I should now like to turn in detail to the reasons why I initiated action against Edinburgh and why, having considered the representations it made in response to my action, I have decided to lay this report before the House.
  It is necessary only to set out the basic statistics for Edinburgh's expenditure plans for 1985–86 to make an overwhelming case for selective action. The figures speak for themselves and I shall remind the House of them. Edinburgh is planning to exceed its guideline by no less than 48 per cent. This is a massive excess and it is six times greater than the next highest excess. If all authorities had overspent by 48 per cent. local authority expenditure in Scotland would have been no less than £1,289 million higher than it is.
  If I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) correctly when he was speaking on the radio this morning, he made it clear that he would have nothing to do with supporting any defiance of court rulings or any contempt of court by a local authority. I hope that he will confirm that sensible and statesmanlike statement when he speaks this evening. However, he must go rather further if he is to satisfy the House of his and his party's bona fides in this matter. We require a clear statement from the hon. Gentleman whether he fully supports all the actions of the Labour administration of Edinburgh district council, including its rating plans, expenditure plans and the increase in rates which these plans involve. He owes it to the House to make it clear whether these plans have his full support in every detail.
  Edinburgh's excess expenditure of 48 per cent. represents £17·2 million in cash, which is almost 20 per cent. of the total overspend of all Scottish local authorities, although at guideline level Edinburgh's expenditure accounts for only 1·2 per cent. of guideline provision. Without Edinburgh's contribution, the spending performance of Scottish local authorities would look much better.
  412
  The level of spending against guideline is not the only test, and on every other way of considering the figures Edinburgh stands out from all other authorities. Its planned level of spending per head is, at £114, the highest of any district council, and almost double the district average of £62. It is well above the average of comparator authorities and above each comparator individually.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are other ways of judging an overspend of £17·2 million? That sum is a quarter of that which was ladled out to Johnson Matthey Bankers and the cost of five days on the Falklands.
  Mr. Younger: Yes. It is probably a much smaller sum and a much smaller percentage if it is compared with all that we spend on the Health Service or the education service in Scotland. It can be compared with anything one chooses. Surely it is fair to compare Edinburgh with its nearest comparator authorities and other local authorities generally. I have no doubt that it is difficult to run a local authority but it is the easiest matter in the world to run one if no attention is paid to the amount of money required to do it. The skill is in matching resources to requirements and it is that which we are criticising this evening.
  The level of growth planned at a time when we are asking authorities to reduce their spending is staggering. Edinburgh is planning to spend in real terms—that is, making full allowance for inflation—33 per cent. more than it spent last year. The comparable figure for districts as a whole is 1·8 per cent. Compared with what the council was spending in 1978–79, it is now planning to spend 68 per cent. more in real terms after fully allowing for inflation. The comparable figure for districts as a whole is 8·3 per cent.
  Thus, on any test, Edinburgh is planning expenditure which is excessive and unreasonable. The cost of that to the ratepayes is heavy, and it is their interests which selective action is designed to protect. When I initiated selective action, I therefore proposed a reduction in the rate of 5·2p to reduce Edinburgh's excessive expenditure and return the savings to the ratepayers in the form of reduced rates. A 5·2p rate reduction, if translated into expenditure savings, would reduce Edinburgh's expenditure by £16·145 million. That would still leave it £1 million above its guideline. That is a 3 per cent. excess compared with the average for all other districts of 2·7 per cent. Thus, in my proposals I am not even expecting Edinburgh to come down to its guideline or even the average excess over that guideline of other authorities. After making such a reduction, its expenditure per head would, at £79, still be above the district average of £62 and the average for its comparators. It would still be above all the comparators individually except one, and above all the cities except Glasgow, which has special expenditure needs. The level of spending after selective action would still be 16 per cent. in real terms above what the council was spending in 1978–79, and that is double the district average. Thus, I do not believe that, in proposing a rate reduction of 5·2p, I am asking Edinburgh to do the impossible when one sees what authorities as a whole, and comparable authorities, are doing.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that, while what he says is true in respect of a complete financial year, by imposing this cut halfway

  413
  through the financial year he is requiring a cut of about 50 per cent.? That will have a chaotic effect on the city's administration.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I shall be covering that point in a few moments. I hope that I am not to take it from his intervention that he supports what Edinburgh is doing. I should have expected him and his party to support this measure.
  Mr. Bruce indicated dissent.
  Mr. Younger: I hope that we shall be told whether the Liberal and the Social Democratic parties support Edinburgh. We are entitled to know.
  I invited Edinburgh to submit representations on my proposal and I have studied the full comments which it sent me. I, together with my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for home affairs and the environment, met representatives of the council when they expanded on those representations. The council's representations and a note of our meeting are included in the report which I have laid before the House. However, I am bound to say that nothing said in the representations or at our meeting leads me to change my view that the council is planning excessive and unreasonable expenditure, or that it is unreasonable for it to be asked to cut its expenditure by the equivalent of a 5·2p rate.
  The representations of the district council contain a vast amount of detail about services. The implication seems to be that any reduction in the level of services that it has in mind is unacceptable. For the reasons I have given, however. I believe that the expenditure consequences of what Edinburgh proposes are quite unreasonable, and must be reduced. I note that Edinburgh is not arguing that any lesser reduction in its plans would be preferable.
  I shall comment on some of the general points which Edinburgh makes. First, it is much concerned that the overall effect of the two statutory steps that I have taken against—it the order which is before us today and my order requiring a reduction in its rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account—is to point to a level of expenditure implied in the budget proposed by the local Conservative group. It suggests that my proposals therefore flout the views of the local electorate. But I stress to the House that that line of thought is not relevant to the order before us, which, as I shall explain, is very generous to Edinburgh. The coincidence, to which the district council's line of criticism relates, does not occur unless one also takes into account my housing order. The reasonableness of that order by itself has, of course, been upheld in the courts.
  The whole argument about the coincidence is in fact wrong-headed. My decision to look for a reduction of 5·2p was based on the considerations I have mentioned, including consideration of the average excess over guideline of all districts, a figure which would not be known to the Edinburgh Conservative group. Of course, my action on the rate fund contribution, including the precise amount in rate poundage terms of the reduction I required, was initiated before the local Conservative group was even involved in budget-setting at all.
  Secondly, the council is critical of the guidelines against which its expenditure has been judged. Those guidelines are based on client group assessments built up service by service on the basis of discussions with the
  414
  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The assessments are, of course, not perfect and are being refined in consultation with the convention. However, Edinburgh is not being expected to budget at its client group assessment. Many hon. Members might wish that their local authorities were similarly treated. Its guideline is fixed at 7·7 per cent. above it in recognition of its 1984–85 expenditure level and to give it a realistic target. Its 1985–86 guideline was described recently by an independent academic commentator as "generous", and is 11 per cent. more in cash than last year—an increase well above the rate of inflation, which again many other authorities in Scotland would be glad to have.
  Thirdly, Edinburgh complained of the other authorities with which it had been compared. Those were chosen on the same basic method as we used to choose comparators in 1982–83 and 1983–84 as authorities whose expenditure need was most like that of Edinburgh, taking account of factors that have been found to affect expenditure. In its representations, Edinburgh compares itself with the other three cities. However, even on that basis, Edinburgh,s still well out of line. It is planning to spend £114 per head That is 34 per cent. more than the average of the three cities., which is £85 per head. It is also planning to spend more than each of the other cities individually.
  We are now asking Edinburgh to bring its spending down not to guideline but to about 3 per cent. above it. In terms of last year's budget, that is about 3·5 per cent. less in real terms than the planned level of spending for 1984–85. Thus, it cannot be said that we are proposing huge reductions in basic services. If such massive reductions happen, it will be because of the course followed by the council of ignoring all the signs arid pressing on with spending plans well above that level until it has no choice but to look for major economies in existing services.
  However, behind all those figures are the ratepayers. Edinburgh's rate for 1985–86 is 22·7p. If it had budgeted to spend at guideline and in line with its rate fund contribution limit, that figure would have been cut by a third. That is a measure of the cost of Edinburgh's plans to its own ratepayers. What is more serious, perhaps, is the effect that Edinburgh council's activities have on the businesses is the city and those considering expanding or coming into the city to create jobs. Rates push up business costs and force businesses to look at ways of cutting down on staff. High rates discourage firms considering setting up in Edinburgh when they know that one of their main costs is in the hands of an unpredictable high-spending council.
  At present, on the information available to us, Edinburgh is spending regardless of the action which has been taken against it and building up its expenditure to ever higher levels. I should like to take this opportunity to give Edinburgh a serious warning about the dangers of the course it is following. The longer Edinburgh takes to recognise the consequences of the action being taken against it and start reducing its expenditure, the harder it will be for that city.
  Every month's delay, indeed every week's delay, means progressively sharper cuts when cuts eventually are made, as they will have to be. The longer the decision to cut is put off and the longer the build-up of unnecessary expenditure, the smaller will be the number of months available over which the required savings will have to be made. It is clear that, even if Edinburgh takes action at the

  415
  end of July, it will still have to spend at a level of 4 per cent. below its guideline for the remainder of the year if it is to keep within the expenditure level implied by the rate reduction I propose.
  If Edinburgh delays that decision for another month until the end of August, it will have to spend 10 per cent. below guideline for the rest of the year. Another month's delay would make the situation even worse, as it spends inthe first half of the year the money that is meant to last the whole year. That raises the prospect of Edinburgh being unable to provide proper services and inflicting damage on the city and on its own employees. Defiance and delay will only damage the citizens of Edinburgh and the employees of the council in a way which could do lasting harm to Scotland's capital city.
  The figures I have quoted make it abundantly clear that Edinburgh is planning excessive and unreasonable expenditure. The consequences of that for ratepayers are serious, and what I propose in this report by way of a rate reduction of 5·2 p will provide welcome relief to them. I am not asking the council to make unreasonable reductions, only to come down to a reasonable and still above-average level of spending.
  This debate is not about a complaint by me or my hon. Friends that Edinburgh is spending more than last year or that it is spending more than we think it ought to. Edinburgh is entitled to do that if it wishes to do so. The debate is about a level of spending which is so extreme, unreasonable and excessive that by any level of calculation something must be done about it. I hope we shall get a clear statement from the hon. Member for Garscadden not only that he deplores any attempt to defy the law, but that he does not support this extreme level of overspending. I hope that we shall have a clear statement from the Liberal party and, if possible from the Social Democratic party about their position; and whether or not they support the interests of the ratepayers of Edinburgh. If ever an argument was put before the House for excessive and unreasonable expenditure requiring action to be taken, it is before us this evening, and I ask the House to support the order.
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I regret that we are having this debate at a rather late hour, crushed into a slot at the fag end of the day. However, it has its consolations. I particularly welcome the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who has made an unexpected appearance in Scottish affairs. I suspect that he is practising. We shall watch developments with interest. We are facing a confusing situation, and that applies in particular to Edinburgh district council. This order is the result of a quite extraordinary exercise in misplaced ingenuity. It is part of what may be described as an obsessive campaign. Sometimes one tends to forget that because of the milk and water and rather limp style of the Secretary of State and the matter of fact way in which he performs at the Dispatch Box. But there is a ferocity of purpose, and we have seen what can fairly be described as a vendetta not just against Edinburgh but against local government in Scotland.
  A battery of assault weapons has been deployed. They came creaking forward and were laboriously manoeuvred
  416
  into position over a number of parliamentary Sessions. Now they are in place and the Government intend to use them to try to bombard and destroy the budget of Edinburgh district council.
  First, the rate fund contribution limitation order asks that £5·8 million be taken out of the rate fund contribution. It sounds a formidable excess, but, of course, it is an excess over a limit which was chosen arbitrarily by the Secretary of State. It is simply an effort to ensure that, in a city where rents are already considerably above the Scottish average, they are forced even higher. It is extraordinary brass neck for the Secretary of State to say, "It is all right, because the courts have said that my order is reasonable." What the courts said was that Parliament for good or ill has pronounced and they could do nothing about it. His statement that that is an argument in favour of what he is doing shows the complete poverty of his case. It is monstrous that, as a friendly interim gesture, the Secretary of State has clawed that £5·8 million out of the capital fund for housing. I hope that that will be repaid if and when the rate fund contribution target is met.
  Secondly, the general abatement represents a penalty of £9,455,000, which neatly excises Edinburgh's entire rate support grant for 1985–86. One problem is that about £2 million has already been paid. During Scottish Question Time recently, the Secretary of State said that he is pondering how to get the money back. I do not know whether he has reached a conclusion, but I hope that he has more constructive and important matters about which to worry than that.
  If the Government force through this order tonight, the £16·3 million that will be clawed back will, in any event, largely eliminate the general abatement. It will be reduced from £9·5 million to about £1 million.
  That underlines the fact that this is a nasty and remarkable case of overkill, because, in addition to the two matters to which I referred, we have the section 5 clawback, which is embodied in this order, of £16·3 million or the equivalent of 5·2p on the rates. The position is remarkably confusing, and it has not been helped by the Secretary of State's speech. He seems to work on the assumption that, since he is right and everyone else is wrong, he need not produce an argument or an intelligent case in support of the order.
  The product of the Government's proposal is clear. If we combine the rate fund contribution order and the order that we are discussing tonight, Edinburgh is being asked to make cuts of about £23 million well into the financial year. Whatever else we may disagree about, it is clear that that will be a painful and damaging process. I hope that Ministers recognise that.
  The Secretary of State tried to justify his position with a flurry of figures. He paraded his disapproval in his usual prim fashion, as though he was discussing some unacceptable conduct with a member of his family. But the position is much more serious than that, and the case that he has made, even on his figures, is nothing like as conclusive as he wishes us to believe. The tragedy is that, in the eyes of the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)—and his colleagues, we have almost reached the point at which every job that is created in local government is a sin, every facility that is opened is an offence and every additional collection or service is an indiscretion. That is not a sensible conclusion.

  417
  The comparisons that have been used in Edinburgh's case are bizarre. Kyle and Carrick and Edinburgh have something in common—they are in Scotland—but beyond that it is difficult to understand why they have been linked. Many of the figures quoted by the Secretary of State sound massive in percentage terms, but we should remember that Edinburgh started from the low base inherited from the previous authority. If we consider the figures for 1983–84 for expenditure per head and employees per 1,000 of the population, we see that Edinburgh started from a low base compared with other Scottish cities.
  Of course, Edinburgh has set out to try to improve services. It had a mandate to do so. There was no dishonesty or deceit. In the election campaign, the Conservative group consistently campaigned on what it described as the irresponsibility of the Labour programme, but the people of Edinburgh voted for it. There is no doubt that the district council has a mandate to which it is entitled.
  Mr. Younger: Can the hon. Gentleman refer to any pre-election programme put out by the Labour party which said that rates would be going up by 79 per cent.?
  Mr. Dewar: The Labour group fought an honest campaign in which it stated its plans for services. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman is saying to me that people in Edinburgh were not aware of the consequences of voting Labour, then he is passing an enourmous vote of no confidence in the political efforts of his own party.
  Mr. Michael Hirst: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to do what the leader of his party is not prepared to do—support the gross overspending of Edinburgh district council? Will he stop equivocating and give the House a straight answer yes or no?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until I have completed my speech. If I may say so, every month he sounds increasingly more pompous. He will have to watch that.
  This should be taken as a serious debate. One matter that Conservative Members should consider is the criteria that ought to apply. We are certainly not being invited to set ourselves up as a surrogate district council. We should not be asked to vote on the basis of whether we would have introduced such a budget. That is not the test that should be applied on this occasion.
  If we consider the figures per head for cleansing services, environmental health, leisure and recreation or libraries and museums—we can give the figures if hon. Members want them—and compare them with those of other cities, in some areas Edinburgh is spending more and in others less, but ultimately it is not a gap which any reasonable man, in my view, would say justifies the extraordinary action that we are being invited to take in terms of the excessive and unreasonable expenditure contained in the order.
  I do not believe there is anything inherently wicked in decent, humane services. It may be that the electorate of Edinburgh would want to vote to cut services and to have lower rates. On this occasion, the electorate voted to increase services. I do not believe that it is the job of Parliament to prevent the Edinburgh district council from carrying out that mandate and answering ultimately for what it does at the ballot box. That is the nature of local
  418
  government. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, we should not interfere. I do not believe that we have reached that point.
  The recreation budget, for example, is £21·2 million. If the Secretary of State has his way, that will be cut to £13·2 million. It is not just a matter of forgoing over £3 million of growth—perhaps the Tories would say that there should be no growth in difficult times—it is finding where to make cuts of over £3 million, which will hurt. I do not believe that it is the business of the House to interfere in that way.
  We could have endless arguments about the figures, but this goes beyond one budget. I believe that the machinery being used is fundamentally wrong. We are discussing a matter of principle. As we have said, the essence of local democracy is that directly elected councillors exercise their judgment, try to meet the needs of their areas and make a count at the end of the day. We are being invited to contemplate a system whereby periodically the Secretary of State imposes a form of direct rule because he disapproves of the policy of the council. I believe that there is sometimes merit in a pluralist society in having centres of power which compete. I do not believe in this kind of bully boy tactic and riding roughshod over local democracy in Scotland.
  This is not a necessary exercise. It is said that it must be done to control public expenditure. In a strange way, Edinburgh has been rejected by the public purse. It has been hived off. In 1980, Edinburgh had a housng support grant of £12 million. It is now nothing, and this year there will be no rate support grant. It will be a city supported by rents, rates and charges. It will be a vision—the ultimate privatisation, in a sense, for the Adam Smith Society—if the Government have their way.
  It is a crazy form of economics to say to the city of Edinburgh, "Forgo £23 million of services to get £9 million of rate support grant." That is a thieves' bargain. It is a land of make believe into which the Secretary of State has stumbled.
  As I have said before—I repeat it so that the Secretary of State may understand it—my hon. Friends and I did not seek this confrontation. It has been a potential confrontation; but it is now an immediate crisis. It is a travesty for the Secretary of State to give the impression that the district council has been inflexible, unreasonable and absolutist.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to challenge me, when I have developed the point.
  Even those who disagree with Edinburgh district council have been aware from the beginning, and have said repeatedly in public statements, that the council's budget is not sacrosanct and that they are prepared to discuss the matter and to negotiate. The last-ditcher, the person who has not been prepared to give an inch and who has seen settlement in terms of capitulation, has been the Secretary of State, and he knows it. He has been saying, in effect, that the only basis on which to achieve a settlement is to ask this directly elected council to accept the budget of the discredited and defeated Tory group. That is inflexibility taken to the point of obstinacy in a way that we should not tolerate.
  Mr. Bruce: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the members of the Labour administration in Edinburgh have not proceeded with their budget, knowing that the amount was likely to be cut and that they would suffer penalties? In those circumstances, can he justify why yesterday they voted to add another £400,000 to the budget, knowing that this measure would be presented today?
  Mr. Dewar: I am sure that during the debate the hon. Gentleman will perform the splits in the way that he usually does on issues such as this. The district council said that it would compromise and go to the negotiating table. The Secretary of State said that the only form of settlement was unconditional surrender. None of us can accept that.
  For the Secretary of State to say that he is doing it in the names of the ratepayers, when the principal cause of discontent on the part of ratepayers has been the persistent cuts in rate support grant by the right hon. Gentleman, represents confounded brassneck on his part. He is doing it not for the ratepayers but for the Treasury. He knows that, and so does everybody else.
  In the polls the right hon. Gentleman has the support of 15 per cent. of the people of Scotland. In May 1984 he led his party to unprecedented defeat in the district council elections and lost control of Edinburgh. He now purports to act as though that defeat never took place. The local authorities in Scotland have every right to fight by every legitimate means available to them. They have the backing of public opinion and it is clear what would happen if there were by-elections in Edinburgh—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South welcome a by-election in his constituency? He would get the result that his record deserves—summary execution—and the same would apply to the rest of the Tories.
  There is a total lack of credibility about the Government's position, and they know it. I imagine that most Conservative Back Benchers—this is the achievement of the Secretary of State from the point of view of his party—have ringed April 1988 as the date that they want for the next general election, on the principle that they should put off the evil day for as long as possible.
  The real problem is how to find a solution to the difficulty, and we should at least turn our minds to that. I regret that this matter has ended up in the courts. There is now an order for specific performance from the Court of Session. I understand the temptation to defy that, but it is a temptation that should be resisted. The court order should be observed. I have no doubt about that, speaking for myself. We are the parliamentary Labour party, and we believe in the democratic process. We have a right to argue and to continue to argue, but the order is there and it would not be sensible to make the central issue—apart from the point of principle—the authority of the courts. The central issue, which the Secretary of State should not escape, is what he has been doing to the services and to the local democratic processes in Scotland.
  Mr. Younger: It may have been a slip of the tongue, but when the hon. Gentleman said that he was repudiating what had been done, he said that he was speaking for himself. Will he make it clear that he is speaking for his colleagues in deploring what has happened?
  Mr. Dewar: I am speaking from the Dispatch Box. I make it clear that while I regret that the Secretary of State has forced us into this position, the court order should be observed. There is no dubiety about that. That is no victory for the right hon. Gentleman. There is no credit to a bully for his actions.
  It is not for me to try to save the Secretary of State from his prejudices and folly. I hope that he remembers what happened in 1980–81, when Lothian was in hot water with the Scottish Office. A similar order was introduced under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 to drop £47 million from Lothian region. It was bulldozed through the House, as this one will be. However, having worked out his aggression and gone through his ritual war dance, the Secretary of State then had to face his responsibilities. He realised that he could not expect Lothian region to make such big cuts, so he settled for £30 million. He forwent £17 million of that penalty.
  In the cold light of day, when he comes to look at what he is doing and the realities of the situation, the Secretary of State will realise that he has set an unreasonable target and he will have to forgo some of the penalty that he is trying to exact. He should forgo all of it. That is why we shall vote againt the measure. It is wrong in principle.
  Even allowing for the fact that the Secretary of State takes a different view, he will have to go back to the negotiating table and make the concessions that, if he had made them several months ago, would have prevented this crisis. That is a fair summary of the position. The right hon. Gentleman should think long and hard, because he is doing a great deal of damage to the structure of government. His course of action is counterproductive and he should desist from it.
  Behind the Secretary of State there is a great deal of private dismay and in the country there is a good deal of public dissension among Tory local government representatives. That is reflected in the polls and in recent local government by-election results in Scotland. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will win the vote tonight. I am a realist about that. However, it will be a pyrrhic victory, and the real victims will be not only many of his hon. Friends when they have to face the electorate but, more seriously, local government in Scotland and its services, which are as important in Edinburgh as in every other part of Scotland.
  I know that the Secretary of State will not retreat now. However, he is committed to a harsh vendetta of which he will repent, unless he is prepared to rethink his position and take account of the realities of Edinburgh district council's position and the interests of public opinion in Edinburgh and throughout Scotland.

  Rates (Edinburgh)
  10.24 pm
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton: As always, I listened with the greatest interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), but his support for the Labour group on Edinburgh district council was the most lukewarm that I have ever heard from a shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.
  On 22 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State initiated action and asked Edinburgh district council to reduce its rate. He was absolutely justified to take that action to protect ratepayers. The council was given three weeks in which to comment and, as it has failed voluntarily to reduce its rate, it has become necessary to lay this report.
  I remind the hon. Member for Garscadden that the precedents were laid down by Labour Governments. Section 5(b) of Labour's Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 provides that, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that
  "the expenditure of any local authority or joint board has been excessive and unreasonable, regard being had to the financial and other relevent circumstances of the area or areas concerned … the Secretary of State may reduce the element of the grant accordingly."
  The principle of the Government having predominance in local authority matters was accepted by Lord Ross of Marnock, as he now is, when he was Labour Secretary of State of Scotland. On 15 December 1975 he said:
  "restraint on spending by local authorities in the years ahead has to be of a stringency hitherto unheard of, certainly in recent times. That is necessary in the interests both of Government and of ratepayers. We have to try to keep down the level of expenditure and the level of the rates."—[Official Report, 15 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 1100.]
  Besides, local authorities owe their existence to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. In the last resort, Parliament, acting in the interests of the nation, is entitled to take the grievances of ratepayers into account.
  Edinburgh's budget is 48·3 per cent. in excess of my right hon. Friend's guidelines and well above the district average of 2·7 per cent. At £114·40 per head, planned expenditure is well above the average of £62·71 for all district councils. The report will reduce the average domestic rate of £494·84 by about £39.
  There is evidence of substantial overspending by Edinburgh district council. It has established a women's committee at a cost of £150,000, in the interests of the promotion of women. I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done far more, by becoming the first woman Prime Minister, to advance and promote the interests of women than has that committee.
  There have been leaflets, posters, car stickers and window bills at a cost of more than £42,000, which I consider to be Labour party propaganda and unnecessary. They have been paid for, not out of Labour party funds, but by Edinburgh district council. Moreover, three advertisements by Edinburgh district council in the local Evening News cost no less than £10,000. If Edinburgh district council is so confident about its policy of improving services why does it have to spend countless sums of money propagandising the electorate and advertising all over the city?
  Mr. Dave Nellist: The hon. Gentleman is talking about propagandising and advertising. Would he care to reveal how many millions, if not hundreds of millions, were spent on advertising and propagandising the privatisation of British Telecom by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to check, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the funds were provided by British Telecom. The hon. Gentleman will also find that the programme has been enormously successful in giving a great many working men a stake in the industry in which they work.
  Recent accounts provided by the finance department show that Edinburgh district council intends to spend £52,000 on policy promotion.
  I should like to give another example. Banners are flying outside the city chambers, the Usher hall, the Assembly rooms, the Meadowbank stadium and elsewhere
  which cost more than £6,000. The flaunting of the red flag over the city chambers was unimportant in itself, but it was symbolic of something much deeper.
  Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the actions of the Edinburgh district council were taken in the face of advice by the chief executive, and that Edinburgh district council had no interest in setting a reasonable budget but was determined to have a head-on confrontation with the Government?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The officials of the Edinburgh district council are very worried that their salaries may not be paid. If this kind of activity continues indefinitely. It was noticeable that the hon. Member for Garscadden did not support to the hilt the Labour party on Edinburgh district council, because he knows that it is grossly overspending.
  I shall give another example of unwise spending namely, that of £10,000 having been spent on T-shirts. Most of my constituents who buy T-shirts do not think automatically of Edinburgh district council as the best source for their production. Furthermore, the 5,000 T-shirts which have been produced were to be sold for £2 each. but rumour has it hat they are not sufficiently popular and that some will have to be sold for £1·50.
  Another example is the expenditure of £35,000 during the miners' strike, including £2,000 for a city arts centre exhibition. This sum had, I understand, been set aside for the families of miners. Whether or not it should have been spent for this purpose has been the subject of substantial political debate. I want to raise only one point, which was mentioned in The Scotsman on 19 November 1984 in an article on Bilston Glen:
  "many men make accusations about money and food parcels reaching only pickets, not the majority of strikers."
  Mr. Norman Buchan rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The allegation which I have quoted comes from The Scotsman in an article about Bilston Glen. I want to make absolutely clear what its source is, and I repeat the allegations made in the article:
  "many men make accusations about money and food parcels reaching only pickets, not the majority of strikers."
  If the £35,000 did not reach the miners' families, but went only to pickets, there would be grounds for very

  423
  substantial complaint by the ratepayers. If money was voted for the families of miners and then was given merely to pickets, it would be entirely unjustified.
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give one reason before I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  "Picketing … became a means of coercion, a substitute, an alternative for winning minds. The moral ascendency, by which I mean that overwhelming sense of decency and fair play, which should characterise all struggles of the workers, was abandoned right from the start."
  Those are not my words, but those of a distinguished socialist, Mr. Jimmy Reid.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) met the district council at Strathkelvin and sympathised with it, because, he said, the districts were dealt with more harshly than the regions?
  Did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) meet Edinburgh district council to hear its views on these matters? Is he willing to emulate his hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Beardsden and promise to fight for Edinburgh district council and against deprivation in Edinburgh?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have met members of the Edinburgh district council and have corresponded with them. The circumstances of Strathkelvin and Edinburgh district councils are entirely different. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) that there is a case for fundamental reform of the rating system.
  Questions have been raised by my constituents about whether the £35,000 reached those for whom it was intended. I am entitled to ask what accounts were kept, which families received money and what receipts there were. Those facts have never been put before the electorate of Edinburgh. It is in the public interest that the electors should know.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my hon. Friend accept that the corruption by the district council in this matter goes further? It was not even representing the interests of its own electors. The vast majority of miners in the council's areas were working during the strike. The council was supporting a minority of the miners in its area.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It would be useful to have full information about exactly where those funds went. The electorate likes to know that funds go to those for whom they are intended.
  It is in character that the Labour group on Edinburgh district council should be financially supporting "the Chilean Democratico." The sum involved is £2,855, including a grant of £1,000 for a Chilean group and a charge of £300 for a public meeting. I suggest that Chilean politicking is not in the interests of my constituents.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that he is doing his case no good? Those of us on both sides of the argument who are interested in the serious constitutional innovation which the use of the order represents will be saddened by the trivia with which the hon. Gentleman insists on defacing the debate.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman failed to tell us whether he supports the budget of the Labour group on Edinburgh district council, I discount his intervention.
  The council's accounts include £4,500 which, it is believed, went to an organisation called LOSS. The electors may take the view that it is a case of one dead loss supporting another.
  There is a more fundamental reason for supporting the report than all those that I have given. When Lothian region put up rates substantially some years ago, a forest of "For sale" signs went up in shops in Princes street and George street. It is essential for Edinburgh's retail trade—the small shopkeepers and business men—to have reasonable rates. It is vital for Edinburgh's capacity to attract business.
  I am particularly anxious about the financial sector—banking, accounting and insurance. Edinburgh is about to promote itself in the European Community and in the United States. The financial sector in Scotland employs about 100,000 people and is a growth sector. I believe that it will provide more jobs. That can be arranged only by a helpful attitude from both central and local government, and heavy rates show an unhelpful attitude towards business.
  Similarly, tourism is a major employer. Edinburgh needs new facilities from the private sector, including a conference centre, another big hotel and a major leisure centre. That will require private investment, and the Secretary of State's actions are necessary to prevent investors from being irrevocably frightened away. The visual signs of alarm are now in abeyance because investors believe that the Secretary of State will go through with the report tonight with the necessary support.
  Mr. Hirst rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a chance to speak later. I should make progress and give other hon. Members a chance to speak.
  It is also necessary to build on the expertise in technology within the universities. We need more high technology companies in Edinburgh, which will have to work closely with the universities. Developments along those lines will lead to more employment in service industries. Incomers are frightened away by both high rates and a negative attitude to business. The chamber of commerce believes that Edinburgh should have better services, and the way to achieve that is to expand the economic base of the Edinburgh community so that its income is higher and the city can afford better services. The way to do that is to create more jobs in the private sector. Business men in the private sector require confidence, which is partly determined by the attitudes of local government, and greatly by those of central Government.
  Finally, if the Edinburgh district council Labour group chooses to defy Parliament's decision, it will become increasingly hard within a limited period to effect the necessary economies. The Labour group must understand that it can no more overturn the democratic decisions of this House than a community council can overturn those of the Edinburgh district council. Many have sought to defy Parliament in the past, but Parliament has always won in the end.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Gavin Strang: On 14 May 1984 a report in the Edinburgh Evening News was headlined "Squalid Horror". A family had taken Edinburgh district council to court because of its living conditions, and it won its case. The sheriff said:
  "I can say at once, that the evidence which I heard satisfied me beyond all doubt that the conditions in which they had latterly had to live were utterly appalling … It is difficult to find words to describe the squalid horror which was to be seen when the court had a view of this house."
  The debate tonight is about that squalor. The cut in the general services order will make it much more difficult to meet housing needs, as the Under-Secretary of State knows full well.
  The Secretary of State made great play of what he called excessive and unreasonable expenditure. He based his judgment almost entirely on the guidelines. What about the guidelines? They were changed. The idea was that the client group approach was more objective and independent, but it is not. In the letter sent to Edinburgh district council on 22 May, appendix A states:
  "Up until 1981–82, guidelines were largely based on historical patterns of expenditure but since 1982–83 they have been based on the client group assessments of the relative expenditure needs of local authorities … Adjustments have been made to the client group assessments to arrive at guidelines for each year. While the adjustments have varied from year to year the aim throughout has been to provide attainable targets for authorities having regard to previous levels of expenditure."
  That is the reality. If the Tory Government's 1983–84 Budget had been within the guidelines—it was not—this year's guideline for Edinburgh would have been £2 million less. When we discuss guidelines, we talk about the disastrous neglect of housing and services in Edinburgh, which has been the consequence of years of inadequate expenditure.
  I am aware that others wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall eschew quoting some of the figures which I had intended to draw to the attention of the House. It is ridiculous for the Secretary of State to talk about Falkirk, Kirkcaldy, Aberdeen, Kyle and Carrick and Renfrew as comparable authorities. It is nonsense to refer to guidelines and objectivity when talking about a previous year's expenditure. It is grotesque to pay civil servants to produce such nonsense when the authorities have been specially selected to make out the Secretary of State's case.
  If we are to make comparisons with other authorities, let us compare the four cities. I have with me the expenditure on general recreation for the four cities from 1976–77 to 1983–84. There are 32 figures, as there are four cities and eight years. Edinburgh was the lowest spender each year on general recreation. I remind the House that Edinburgh has to put on the Commonwealth games and that it has the Meadowbank Stadium and Commonwealth swimming pool. These major sporting facilities are for Scotland and not just Edinburgh but we are expected to spend less each year on recreation, and sometimes much less, than the other cities per head of population.
  The same is true of libraries and museums. Again I have 32 figures in front of me for the years of Tory administrations. What has the abysmal expenditure in Edinburgh meant? Instead of opening new facilities—for example, providing new bowling greens and tennis courts—the old facilities have been shut. Bowling greens are very important to my constituents fifteen tennis
  426
  courts have been closed in the past 10 years and four have been privatised. Fourteen bowling greens have been closed during the 10 years of Tory control.
  Edinburgh has some of the worst housing conditions in Scotland. They are disgraceful. Our services have been run down. The response of people of Edinburgh was to elect a Labour council. Labour has been the largest party in Edinburgh before, but this is the first time that the city hs had a majority Labour council.
  Contrary to the Secretary of State's impression—I can remember this vividly listening to the Leader of the Labour group on local radio—the Labour party spelled out that the election of a Labour council would mean rates increases. It was made clear that extra money could be found only by forcing up the rates. Rating was an issue during the election campaign and the issue was put to the people fairly and squarely. What has been the response?
  Mr. Hirst rose—
  Mr. Strang: I shall not give way, as I am aware that others want to participate in the debate. The Labour party was elected in Edinburgh on the clear mandate of reversing the appalling neglect and misery that was the legacy of Conservative administrations. The people wanted the council to start re-opening bowling greens and tennis courts instead of closing them, and to raise standards in the area.
  The Government's response was to impose on the elected council of Edinburgh a budget which was defeated by the council on 5 March. The minority Tory budget was defeated by 40 votes to 22. As the Secretary of State knows, the proposed cut is identical to 0·1 of a penny. The cuts in the housing revenue budget and the associated rate cut and the cut in the general service rate would have reduced the rate from 22·7p to 15·7p which was the precise figure submitted by the Tories.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Which parties voted to defeat that district council budget?
  Mr. Strang: A Scottish Nationalist party representative and an alliance representative certainly voted in that way. It is a constitutional outrage to impose that defeated Tory budget on the Edinburgh people. These cuts are massive. This measure is much more drastic than that faced by Lothian. It is true that Lothian regional council said that it would have to make massive lay-offs, and that it managed to avoid doing that. If the Government do not realise that this measure is much more severe than that, they should talk to Edinburgh district council officials. I hope that the Government will recognise the enormity of what they are trying to impose on the Edinburgh people.
  The Secretary of State said, in a curious remark, that Edinburgh district council had not suggested in its submissions that a lower level of expenditure would be acceptable. The right hon. Gentleman implied that the council was not prepared to settle on a figure between the minimal Tory figure and the figure outlined in the budget. Every hon. Member knows that that is not true. The leadership of the council asked the Secretary of State for a meeting, and got it. The Government's position was in black and white—an order was laid in the House—and it was clear that they were not prepared to discuss the position with Edinburgh district council in a reasonable way. The Government were satisfied that they would force the minority Tory party's budget on the Edinburgh people.

  427
  This report is about democracy and a constitutional outrage, but it is also about the quality of life. I have had the privilege to represent an Edinburgh constituency for more than 15 years. some of the poorest parts of the city lie within my constituency, and Ministers know that. During the past five years I have seen the decline in housing and the people who once had a chance of getting a house, but now have no chance. I have seen the squalor of parts of the city. The majority of young people leave school with no prospect of getting a job. Facilities have been closed and football pitches and bowling greens have been shut. The Labour council wants people to be able to get work. It wants to give them hope and and to start to reverse the decline in housing decline.
  We want to improve the houses, to open the bowling greens and to improve facilities. The Government want to force up charges, we want to let the people use the facilities. The Tories forced up prices at the Jack Kene centre in Craigmillar so high that the people could not afford to use the centre. We cut the charges, and the people are starting to use it. This is what the debate is about—an Edinburgh Labour council trying to help the people confronted by the new hard Right, the authoritarian Right-wing Tory Government. That is why, at the end of the day, the Government will lose, no matter how the House votes tonight.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am pleased to follow two Edinburgh Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)—and to give a slightly less introverted view of the position in Edinburgh.
  Mr. Nellist: They would never call the hon. and learned Gentleman "introverted" in those trousers.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I do not know whether the hard Left understand what tartan is all about. I doubt that it does. If those hon. Members understood the kinship and civility that it represents, they would not sit there as a sort of shadow of eagles above the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland who did not dare state his true opinion and clung to the Dispatch Box as his only friend.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East started with a piece of sentimentality about a story in the Edinburgh Evening News. I notice that Opposition Members believe the reports in the Evening News, but they mocked the reports that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West quoted from The Scotsman. They believe what they want to believe.
  Similar absurd sentimentality was directed towards me when I stood for Edinburgh, Central. False stories of squalor were spread. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East wants to see squalor and humility, he should come to the country. He will see the services provided for those who live in the country, but they do not complain because they are not manipulated by politicians.
  I have great respect for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. Tonight he was not the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland; he was the shadow of the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. Only a lawyer could have given a so pellucidly false defence of a rotten case in which
  428
  he clearly did not believe. If it had not been for the fact that the clients were behind him warning him that he had better pretend that he was in favour of the Edinburgh mafia, he would not have done so.
  I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman what doctrine of law or morals of politics it is when he says, "Speaking for myself." I am surprised that he did not get off the Front Bench and go behind himself to speak for himself, then in front of himself and say to himself, "Me and the Dispatch Box, believing in one another, have a private opinion which we believe is acceptable to us and our conscience but which we must not share with the shadow Cabinet or the rest of the party behind me." I have never heard of a doctrine by which he can say that he believes in law and order and say, "Speaking from the Dispatch Box, and the Box and I, both being made of wood, understand one another." The leader of the Edinburgh council is also called Wood. "We are in league. We understand one another, and I shall not extend my responsibilities to my colleagues because I know that they would not share them." I regard that as disgraceful. I am amazed that it came from the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I use the word "learned" only as a courtesy of the House. May I make it clear to him and to any other hon. Gentleman who wishes to listen, and I hope to put it beyond misrepresentation, that we believe that the court order must be observed.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Who is "we"?
  Mr. Dewar: The Labour party believes that the court order must be observed. It should not be ignored. I want to make that clear. That is part of the demomcratic process in which we all operate. A court order exists and that is something that we and everyone must take into account. That statement is unambiguous and made without any caveat. In two or three years we shall have a different Government and different laws, but I am sure that he would want to obey court orders, as we obey them at the moment.
  Mr. Fairbairn: If, as is unlikely, in two or three years it were to be a Government of the hon. Gentleman's persuasion, we should not seek to say that we obey the law only so far as it suits us, and call only for the Dispatch Box as our ally. If the hon. Member for Garscadden is not willing to allow me the courtesy of the title to which I am entitled, and does so only out of courtesy, that demonstrates the pellucid fallacy of his arguments and judgment.
  The rating and voting system which Opposition Members care to call democracy have always been of great benefit to Socialists. It has always amazed me that the English gentlemen here tonight have never seen the advantage that can so easily be taken of the system.
  Of the electorate who provide local funds, the industrial third has no vote and the commercial third has no vote. Of the domestic sector which has a vote, more than 50 per cent. benefit from increased expenditure without having to contribute to it. It is an absolute mug's paradise. If I had been a Socialist, I would have taken advantage of it long ago. I would have been spending through the roof, because votes can be bought. One can have any number of bowling greens and one can besmirch a city with notices saying,

  429
  "We are providing services with jobs." [Interruption.] If hon. Members would listen rather than shout, they might learn something.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East raised a very important point. Edinburgh is about to have to service the Commonwealth games. I am informed, from the most impartial sources of all persuasions, that those who would have been contributing to the Edinburgh Commonwealth games are ceasing to do so because of the policies of Edinburgh district council. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] People can be given free bowling greens in Craigmillar; but what is provided in an equivalent part of Edinburgh, in Pilton? That is real prosperity. Instead of being run by a local authority as a housing encampment, the houses in Pilton have been privatised and sold off, and jobs and services are coming from those sales.
  Not only on the present inequalities of the voting system does extravagance pay. If I had been a good Socialist I would have noticed that extravagance has paid hand over fist. The Secretary of State has announced tonight that he will not even ask Edinburgh district council to come down to its guideline. He will not even ask it to come within £1 million of its guideline. As a result of its extravagance last year, the guideline of Edinburgh district council is infinitely higher that it was. The Secretary of State rightly said that it would be impossible to make the council come reasonably within its guideline, so he will meet the council half way. But the guideline of responsible authorities, such as Perth and Kinross district council, is kept miles below where it should be. So Edinburgh district council, in this great battle, will discover, as the Secretary of State has just announced, that it will be allowed to spend miles above its guideline and to benefit from it for the second year running.
  I understand that Labour Members know how to work the system. If I were with Mr. Wood and his little clique of Marxists, I would do the same.
  Mr. David Lambie: What about the legal aid system?
  Mr. Fairbairn: If the hon. Member for Cunninghame. South (Mr. Lambie) wishes to question legal aid, he can do so; but let him remember that legal aid in Scotland did not start for criminal matters until I had been at the Bar for five years and I had defended without fee 17 people who were in line for the death penalty. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say that people at the Bar are on the gravy train, let him say it to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Garscadden, who is a solicitor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not raise that matter again.
  Edinburgh's income comes from its commerce and from a few of its citizens, and that commerce and those citizens are being driven out. Edinburgh is destroying the goose that lays the golden eggs. It may have a few more bowling green attendants and people who paint banners and hang them up, and, when they are torn down, hang them up again; it may have people who work in the legal department in order to get round the fact that they do not have planning permission to besmirch the city; but it is defying by extravagance, because the people who are doing it believe it to be to their electoral advantage. They are spending other people's money to promote their hideous doctrine. The Labour Government introduced the system, but, as the Secretary of State said tonight, one cannot feed from the ratepayers.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Ron Brown: Being a member of the Leith Labour party and not the Edinburgh Labour party, I may be allowed to say that this is a timely debate and sums up many things happening in this country. Democratic, basic rights are under attack: that is what this debate is all about. The Secretary of State is, in effect, a governor-general. He is imposing the diktat of Whitehall, the diktat of a discredited regime, and whatever he says will not wash in Scotland, not even in the Tory press. That is an indication of what the electorate in Scotland thinks of the Conservative party.
  Despite all the comments in the past about the Tories being concerned to see less interference in local affairs, less government, more freedom, we see now that the mask has dropped. Not only has this Government double standards, they are two-faced, because in reality they represent a police state. One has only to look at the catalogue of laws they have brought in since they came to office in 1979. It is sheer hypocrisy for Conservative Members to talk about cutting public expenditure. During the Government's term of office, they have cut over £1 billion from the rate support grant in Scotland. That is not money saved, because it has been transferred elsewhere. It has been invested, so called, in Trident and in a new breed of nuclear weapons. That is hypocrisy, and I use that term advisedly.
  The Government have priorities, but they are not interested in the people of England or Scotland or wherever. One recalls the old reactionary slogan of guns before butter, but today the slogan is missiles before life, before health. [Interruption.] We hear a lot of criticism in this debate of Labour councils, but we know from looking at the record, that those councils do not throw money around: they do not have it to throw around. Given a chance, they invest in their communities, they invest in people, because they are the greatest asset and resource we have. Some of my colleagues are in Edinburgh, and they are defending jobs, services, and living standards. Some Conservative Members seem to think that that is a crime nowadays.
  All local authorities have mandates, which they must follow. To do otherwise would mean that they were doing the Tory party's dirty work, and our colleagues in Edinburgh certainly do not intend to do that. In some newspapers, including The Sun, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, my colleagues in Edinburgh are called doctrinaire extremists. If that is the case, let us have more of it. I prefer to call it sticking to principles, which is important in politics nowadays.
  In case Conservative Members have forgotten it, the Labour party won last year's local elections with a record swing—[Interruption.)
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the thread of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but is it in order for him to use the Chamber of the House of Commons as a flyposting board to display his propaganda? Should he not be asked to remove that banner?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As a mere Englishman, I have not seen or heard anything that is out of order.
  Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was saying that the Labour

  431
  party won last year's election with a record swing in support. Why did that happen? Was it simply a fluke that Labour took control of Edinburgh? Of course, we know the reason. Edinburgh, like Britain, is in a mess because of the Tory administration. The so-called Athens of the north had become the slum of the north, and the Labour party had to move in and deal with the problems.
  To follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, may I remind the House that the Labour administration in Edinburgh inherited a housing waiting list of 13,000 families, and a backlog of sub-standard local authority housing? About 6,000 houses were without baths. I am sure that some Conservatives Members have several baths in their houses. Thanks to Tory maladministration, Edinburgh had litter-strewn streets, and libraries without books—not even the Dandy or the Beano. Recreation facilities were closed.
  All that happened in a city which talks about a festival—
  Mrs. Anna McCurley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Brown:—for the middle classes and the rich. It talks about hosting the Commonwealth games. It talks about many things—[Interruption.]
  Mrs. McCurley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to decorate the Opposition Benches with—[Interruption.] I see that the banner has just come down, so I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I dealt with that point of order earlier. May I remind the House that this is a short debate, and that the Minister hopes to reply at 11.20 pm.
  Mr. Brown: Much more could be said about the Tory record in Edinburgh. Indeed, much more should be said about it. We had criminals operating in Edinburgh for a long time, not doing the jobs that they were elected to do, but working contrary to the interests of Edinburgh's citizens. We hear about the two nations of the Conservative party. In Edinburgh, we have two cities. Visitors to Edinburgh notice better than anyone that, in the new town, there are fine new buildings. They see Bute house, where the Secretary of State resides in all his finery and with his 10 baths. If one goes there, one is very impressed, that is, until one goes to the new houses.
  To give the Secretary of State his due, he does occasionally come out of his fantastic mansion. He came out of his tied cottage, for example, a year or so ago when he went to West Pilton to visit some friends who had acquired, thanks to the Tory council, a number of houses which had been modernised. Of course, the houses were bought at a knock-down price. The houses were being sold off to the private sector for a record profit. The right hon. Gentleman quite naturally goes to see his friends, the building fraternity. After all, they are very good at financing the Tory party. They are very generous at putting money into the coffers. One company alone in Edinburgh, Smart the builders, in one year gave £30,000 to the Tory party, so quite naturally the Tories look after their friends.
  Talking about kick-backs, we can observe this on the Government Benches, because the Secretary of State and the Tory party know all about kick-backs.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs visited Edinburgh, we were discussing the serious problem of dampness? Does he recall the appalling conditions that we found? Does he recall that the then Conservative convenor of housing, Councillor Drummond-Young, appealed for more capital to be invested in Edinburgh? Is not one of the most appalling features of the order the fact that that capital is going to be reduced?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The former councillor to whom he refers, Councillor Drummond-Young, was obviously very concerned about the situation. He was an extreme Right-winger. I do not know whether he is still around these days. He lost his seat, quite naturally, in the last local elections.
  I think that that sums up the role of the Tory party. Even within that Tory group, there was concern about the indifference of its own Government. Undoubtedly, Councillor Drummond-Young made that point to the Select Committee. I am sure that this could be repeated throughout the country. No doubt we would hear the same in Liverpool.
  Mr. Robert Parry: In the last session of Parliament, I represented Liverpool, Scotland. I fully support the fight which my hon. Friend is making on behalf of the people of Edinburgh. I can assure him, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) of the support of the Liverpool people. I note that the Secretary of State is shaking his hands, but he is the monkey grinder for Mrs. Thatcher, like the Secretary of State for the Environment—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Parry: It appears that in the battle in Edinburgh in Scotland and in Liverpool in England, the cold hand of the Prime Minister is behind the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. What he says can be summed up in this way. What the Tories are saying is, take it or leave it. That is the message being given from the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State, who knows full well that his political role is to support big business. It is to redistribute wealth from the working class to the bosses. That is his job. He does it in a certain way, and he tries a little flannel, but he does not con many people. He may suggest that in better times it is possible to be more generous, and it is true that in good times in the past a few crumbs were given to the working class. Now they are being taken back.
  Why is this action being taken against Edinburgh? Is it because the Secretary of State is vicious and vindictive? [Interruption.] The real reason is that there is an almighty crisis in the economy and the Tories want to take back all the gains that the working class has won since the war. They want to reduce real wages, attack the welfare state and reduce the social wage. That is why they are having a go at Edinburgh, which is sticking its neck out and is in the front line. The Government feel that they must challenge that position.
  Some say that what is happening is the result of monetarism. Let us be clear that that is not a new word. Monetarism was tried years ago, especially in the 1920s,

  433
  when, like today, the working class was told that the nation had to save money, and there were calls for a return to the gold standard. That resulted in attacks on jobs and living standards, and the working class suffered.
  Despite the setback of 1926, when the working class was let down badly because of weak-kneed individuals—the TUC of that period—in the local authorities there were individuals such as George Lansbury in Poplar who led the way forward. I say in all modesty—[Interruption.]—that Edinburgh typifies the Poplar spirit, the spirit of Lansbury. If we are to learn from history, we must look back to what was achieved by the individuals of the time, because the same can be achieved now.
  Conservative Members may smile at what I am saying, but in Edinburgh the members of the Labour group are still concerned with fighting injustice, although the Secretary of State is bound to disagree with anything that we say on behalf of the working class. He and his hon. Friends will continue to jump up and down and assert, "We represent parliamentary democracy," and pontificate on what that means. When Conservative Members speak about democracy, they do so as a front for the capitalist system, a system that is unfair, inefficient, corrupt and dangerous.
  It is unfair because wealth is concentrated into fewer hands; it is inefficient because it creates massive unemployment and results in foodstuffs, like industries, being destroyed; it is corrupt because it fosters the black economy and harbours, for example, the Vestey family; and that it is dangerous was demonstrated by the conflict in the south Atlantic.
  For all those reasons, the capitalist system is condemned. My advice to my colleagues in the Public Gallery—[Interruption.]—is that they should stick to their guns. It is not simply a question—[Interruption]—of breaking the law. Laws can be made and they can be unmade. Laws made by the Conservatives are not designed to improve society but to destroy the decent things in life. If Tory Members speak to working class people they will have that explained, though I am beginning to wonder whether they would even want to speak to Conservative Members.
  Why not bend the knee, and let things develop? Why not concede certain things? That would not be just a gesture, of the sort that many in this place are used to. It would mean that services and jobs would be decimated. One could not consider what would happen as a result. If we described what would happen, we would be describing a real horror story. Somebody could make a video of it, and sell it off to ITV.
  We must emphasise that the order does not cover housing, although it has been mentioned, because housing policy has been decided in the other place.
  Mr. Martin Flannery rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Edinburgh Leith (Mr. Brown) giving way?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, I am.
  Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the struggles against the Tory party by Labour Members, cities such as Sheffield, Edinburgh and Liverpool and boroughs such as Lambeth, have resulted, whether the Tories like it or not, in the latest Gallup poll? It shows that the Tories are third at 28 per cent., with the alliance taking
  434
  32 per cent. of the poll, and the Labour party 38 per cent. The Tories will read this in the Daily Telegraph tomorrow. and realise where their policies are taking them
  Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his important point.
  It was interesting that earlier on, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Harnilton) attacked the Labour group for flying the red flag. I assume that he would prefer the stars and stripes, or a white flag, but for us, the red flag is a nice colour and quite appropriate. He thinks that the members of the Labour group in Edinburgh are extremists, but far from it. Even the figures produced by the Government show that Edinburgh is spending £9·1; per head of population, compared with the Scottish average of £11·04.
  If the rate support grant of 1974 were paid today, Edinburgh would be £2 million better off, but because of the repeated cuts, Edinburgh has suffered.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to you to have regard to the provisions of standing order No. 3(1)(b), bearing in mind that the confrontation that is going on is likely to have the effect of excluding my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) from expressing the views of 25 per cent. of the people of Scotland, who have as much claim as anybody else to take advantage of the debate. Therefore, I ask you to rule that, because of the importance of the subject matter, the time for debate has not been adequate, and under the provisions of the standing order, you will allow the business to stand over until the next day's sitting.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House will not have the opportunity to speak in the debate, but I am not prepared to exercise my discretion in that regard, and I intend to put the question at 11·30.
  Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) to take precedence over those of us who represent some of the district under discussion?
  Mr. Brown: It has been suggested that Edinburgh councillors want confrontation. It is the Government who want confrontation. They are on a loser if they think that electors do not back the councillors. If the Secretary of State knows anything about Edinburgh—when he occasionally goes there he no doubt reads the Edinburgh Evening News—he knows that the Evening News is not a revolutionary newspaper and that it carried a poll—
  It being half past Eleven o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
  The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 137.

  Division No. 282]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Amess, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ancram, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Arnold, Tom

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Blackburn, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

  Bottomley, Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Baldry, Tony

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

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  435

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hickmet, Richard

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bright, Graham

  Hirst, Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Holt, Richard

  Browne, John

  Howard, Michael

  Bruinvels, Peter

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

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Budgen, Nick

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Burt, Alistair

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Butterfill, John

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cash, William

  Hunter, Andrew

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jessel, Toby

  Chapman, Sydney

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Colvin, Michael

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Coombs, Simon

  Key, Robert

  Cope, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Corrie, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Couchman, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Crouch, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lamont, Norman

  Dicks, Terry

  Lang, Ian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Latham, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dunn, Robert

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Durant, Tony

  Lightbown, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lilley, Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Evennett, David

  Luce, Richard

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fallon, Michael

  McCrindle, Robert

  Farr, Sir John

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Favell, Anthony

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, David John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

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

  Forth, Eric

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Madel, David

  Fox, Marcus

  Major, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Maples, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Gale, Roger

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Galley, Roy

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mellor, David

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Merchant, Piers

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gow, Ian

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Moate, Roger

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Ground, Patrick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Grylls, Michael

  Moore, John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hannam, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Needham, Richard

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Michael

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Newton, Tony

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Normanton, Tom

  Hayes, J.

  Norris, Steven

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Osborn, Sir John

  Henderson, Barry

  Ottaway, Richard

  436

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Speed, Keith

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Squire, Robin

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Stern, Michael

  Parris, Matthew

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Pawsey, James

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stokes, John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Portillo, Michael

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Thurnham, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Viggers, Peter

  Raffan, Keith

  Walden, George

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walker, Bill (Tside N)

  Renton, Tim

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wood, Timothy

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rost, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and

  Silvester, Fred

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  NOES

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Fisher, Mark

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Flannery, Martin

  Barnett, Guy

  Forrester, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Beggs, Roy

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bell, Stuart

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Benn, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Haynes, Frank

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Buchan, Norman

  Home Robertson, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Hume, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  John, Brynmor

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cohen, Harry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Coleman, Donald

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Lambie, David

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Lamond, James

  Corbett, Robin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Leighton, Ronald

  Cowans, Harry

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Litherland, Robert

  Craigen, J. M.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Crowther, Stan

  Loyden, Edward

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dalyell, Tam

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Deakins, Eric

  McKelvey, William

  Dewar, Donald

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Dixon, Donald

  McTaggart, Robert

  Dobson, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Douglas, Dick

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Martin, Michael

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Eadie, Alex

  Meacher, Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Ewing, Harry

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Nellist, David

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Nicholson, J.

  437

  O'Brien, William

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Parry, Robert

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Snape, Peter

  Pike, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Prescott, John

  Stott, Roger

  Radice, Giles

  Strang, Gavin

  Randall, Stuart

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Redmond, M.

  Wareing, Robert

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Wilson, Gordon

  Robertson, George

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Woodall, Alec

  Rogers, Allan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved
  That the Rate Reduction (City of Edinburgh District) 1985–86 Report, which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

  Rate Rebates (Scotland)
  11.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
  That the Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) Order 1985, dated 9 July 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the debate that has just ended, the arguments that could be advanced by the parties representing 25 per cent. of the electorate in Scotland were not heard. The mess that Edinburgh faces is the direct result of the confrontation between the Conservative and Labour parties. We have been denied the right to contribute to this debate. In those circumstances, although we oppose the actions of the Government, it was impossible for us to vote when we had no opportunity to explain our views. Is this a democractic Chamber, or is it not?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Equally, I understand that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, including one Minister, were disappointed in the last debate. The Chair always does its best in the limited time available.
  Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Of course I will take the right hon. Gentleman's point of order, but I hope that he realises that time taken up by points of order now is taking valuable time out of this debate, which can last only for an hour and a half.
  Mr. Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that this will be helpful to the Chair—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to hear this point of order.
  Mr. Steel: Under Standing Order No. 3(1)(b), where the occupant of the Chair is of the opinion that
  "because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting (other than a Friday)."
  May I suggest that when the Front Benches have taken so much time, when an hon. and learned Member from well outside Edinburgh has taken so much time and when one Edinburgh Member has spoken for 25 minutes, the only discipline available to the occupant of the Chair is the use of that Standing Order to make it clear that hon. Members who try to occupy the time of the House in that way will not get away with it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the issue raised in that point of order; I am rot sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the time. I exercised my discretion. That is the duty of the Chair on such occasions.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), you referred to the disappointment of a number of

  439
  hon. Members in all parts of the House, but I hope that you were not suggesting that the disappointment felt by Back-Bench Labour or Conservative Members could be compared with the frustration of two political parties that represent a quarter of the electorate—a disappointment which is compounded by the fact that in his opening speech the Secretary of State specifically invited contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and from myself.
  The Government side took 52 minutes of the debate, the Labour party took 58 minutes and they excluded third party opinion. The procedures of the House were grossly abused and it was noted that there were no suggestions from the Chair about the desirability of short speeches. In the latter part of the debate, remarks strayed very far from order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I hope that we can now get on.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If those roles are to be invoked, do not matters of geography become relevant? Why does an hon. Member from 300 miles to the north think that he can take precedence over some of us who represent the area concerned? I make no complaint about not being called, but let it be recorded that if there is to be precedence, hon. Members who represent the area should take precedence over those from a long way away.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the House now realises very well that the Chair is sometimes in the middle of the crossfire.
  Mr. Ancram: The order is the last link in the statutory chain needed to bring into effect the relief for ratepayers which my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 14 May. The powers enabling the order to be made are prescribed in the Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Act 1985 which was given a Second Reading on 3 June. After a speedy passage—I am glad to record our thanks for the co-operation given by the Opposition—the Act received Royal Assent on 26 June. It comes into force on 26 August, which is also the date of coming into operation of this order.
  The order is also the latest measure by the Government to mitigate the most severe effects of the 1985 revaluation. As the House knows, we increased the domestic element of rate support grant, first, on the basis of early estimates of the new values, when it became apparent that the domestic sector as a whole would have to bear a substantially greater share of the rate burden and, secondly, to the unprecedented level of £102 million after local authorities had determined their rates and it became clear that an intolerable burden on the domestic sector was being imposed by the effects of revaluation, together with high spending plans. I am bound to say there have been some irresponsibly high spending plans, in one case so wildly irresponsible that my right hon. Friend has been obliged to take the selective action approved by the House tonight.
  Relief for the domestic sector and adjustment of the effects of revaluation through reduction of industrial derating from 50 to 40 per cent. were possible by using powers already available to us. When later information
  440
  became available for individual ratepayers of the combined effects of revaluation and high rates, it became clear that something more needed to be done, in particular for commercial ratepayers for whom our earlier average figures had indicated that the effect of revaluation was broadly neutral. Once the rolls were published, we learnt that there were many individual cases of horrifying rate increases. They seriously jeopardised the ability of many commercial ratepayers to continue in business. The powers that the Government already had did not enable us to meet the circumstances, hence the need to seek the powers which are now enacted in the Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Act 1985.
  The House may find it helpful if I briefly remind it of those powers. The Act enables my right hon. Friend to provide by order for rating authorities to grant rebate of rates on property where the 1985–86 rateable value is more than three times the 1984–85 rateable value. Property valued by formula or by order, property occupied by the Crown or local authorities, and industrial and freight transport subjects benefiting from industrial derating are all excluded. An order may be made for the current financial year or any year thereafter. The order before the House exercises those powers for 1985–86.
  Articles 1 and 2 are the normal provisions dealing with citation and commencement, and with interpretation.
  Article 3 simply provides for rating authorities to grant rebates to lands and heritages which qualify under the Act.
  Article 4 provides for the amount of rebate to be calculated by comparing old and new values for the same property. Rates payable after rebate will be as if the new rateable value were no more than three times the old value.
  There is also provision that, in calculating rebate, no account should be taken of any reduction in the amount of rates payable when any valuation appeal is pending. Until an appeal is settled, a ratepayer is required to pay only 90 per cent. of his rates, or such lesser amount as the rating authority may agree. The effect of the provision in article 4(2) is that the 90 per cent. rule is not taken into account when determining a rebate. It might be thought that it is unnecessary to give a ratepayer the benefit of both a rebate and the 90 per cent. concession on the amount payable while a valuation appeal is pending. But it is important that the new rebate scheme does not encourage ratepayers from appealing if they think that the valuations are wrong.
  My right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that the rebate scheme should not be regarded in any way as a substitute for going ahead in the normal way with an appeal where the ratepayer disagrees with the assessor's valuation. We therefore think it important to retain intact and separate the "upfront" incentive of 10 per cent. off the amount payable, without having it confused by being subsumed in the revaluation rebate at this stage. Obviously, once the appeal is determined one way or the other, the result will be the basis of the final entitlement to revaluation rebate, if any. Thus, someone who is in due course successful in his appeal, to the extent that his revised valuation would not have entitled him to as much revaluation rebate, will have his account adjusted, in accordance with article 6.
  Article 4(3) is a provision restricting the rebate for any one property to £10,000. The intention is to focus relief on the small ratepayer and especially smaller businesses. We recognise that there is some rough justice in this provision. There is an obvious disadvantage for the large one-shop business as against the large business which

  441
  operates many small shops. But resolving anomalies of that kind would seriously complicate the scheme and there is no guarantee that any solution would not itself produce further anomalies. A restriction of £ 10,000 for each rebate is considered the simplest method of targeting relief on small businesses.
  Article 5 first places a duty on rating authorities to ascertain those lands and heritages which qualify for rebate and to grant the appropriate rebate by 16 September 1985. This provision is based on the advice we received from officials of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and of rating authorities and assessors whom we consulted about the practical application of the scheme. Briefly, they advised that the scheme would operate more smoothly if rating authorities determined from their records who was entitled to rebates and calculated and awarded the appropriate amount. Modern systems make this much easier than obliging ratepayers who think they may be entitled to rebate to lodge a claim. We are grateful for that advice, which we were glad to accept, and for which other sound advice which those bodies gave which has been taken into account in the order. The deadline of 16 September should allow any ratepayer to make payments by instalments of rebated rates within the prescribed arrangements.
  Rebates may be granted either by a payment to the ratepayer or by reducing rates payable. Given the numbers involved it is not improbable that, because, for example, records are not completely up to date, some ratepayers may not be granted a rebate by the due date. Provision is therefore made for claims by ratepayers who have not been granted a rebate.
  Rating authorities are required by 23 September 1985 to advertise in the press informing, ratepayers that they may claim rebates within 28 days of publication of the advertisement. A form of claim is contained in the schedule to the order. Rebates must be granted as soon as an application is accepted. If it is refused, the applicant has to be informed immediately in writing. If the rating authority fails to determine an application within 28 days of it being submitted, it shall be deemed to have refused the application. The ratepayer then has 28 days from a determination or deemed refusal in which to appeal against these to the sheriff. The procedure for such appeals, which was a matter of some debate when the Bill was before the House, is set out in article 7. There is also provision in article 6—which I have already mentioned—for rebate to be reassessed where values or rates are altered.
  According to the latest return which COSLA has obtained from all Scottish rating authorities, some 133,000 domestic and 62,000 non-domestic, including commercial, ratepayers will qualify for rebate and the total cost of the scheme is estimated at about £30 million, which is a considerable and unprecedented figure. But the scheme is demand-led and the final cost will only be known once all rebates are settled.
  As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the order applies to the current year only. Further rebate orders may be made for subsequent years. We have thought it right to go no further for the present than provision for 1985–86.
  Mr. Dalyell: Has any rough estimate been made of the cost? It cannot be cheap.
  Mr. Ancram: Various estimates have been made. It is thought that the cost will be under £1 million. I made it
  442
  clear when the primary legislation was passing through the House that the expenditure would be disregarded for penalty purposes in future years.
  Decisions on local authority expenditure and grant are normally made in the autumn of the year preceding the financial year to which they will apply. Any extension of this rebate scheme beyond 1985–86 falls to be considered along with the other relevant matters for that year in question and most appropriately provided for at that time.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House—if not this evening, at the earliest possible opportunity—whether the provisions will continue next year? What arrangements are being made to reimburse local authorities for administering the scheme? I expected that important aspect to be covered in the hon. Gentleman's description of the order.
  Mr. Ancram: I thought that I had made it clear that the cost of administering the scheme would he disregarded. That would be local authority expenditure which the local authorities would bear themselves. It would be disregarded for the purposes of guidelines. I appreciate that it is in the interests of ratepayers and others to know the intentions for the following years as soon as possible. Those decisions, and decisions on the domestic element of rate support grant, are announced and taken in the House. We hope to make those announcements in November or December this year.
  The order will bring much needed relief to those ratepayers in Scotland who face greatest hardship from increases in values and in rate bills in the current year. It is a practical expression of the Government's concern. Although there will still be people who face massive rate increases, we will have met the worst of the burdens that have been created by some elements of the revaluation. That is what we undertook to do when we were passing the legislation. The process has been completed by the order, and I commend it to the House.
  12.12 am
  Mr. Jim Craigen: The Under-Secretary of State has acknowledged the assistance rendered by the Opposition during the passage of the enabling legislation. There was a problem in the commercial sector, especially for many small businesses.
  The generosity of the £50 million in new money has been shown to be more apparent than real. The Under-Secretary of State referred to the order as the "last link." but there seem to be a few lost chords. A shortfall of £20 million is a considerable underestimate of the cost. By refusing to lower the threshold below the three times factor, the Government have effectively denied many ratepayers the assistance that they might have thought would be available, given the Younger declaration at Perth on 9 May. So many figures have been cited for the number of commercial and domestic ratepayers who will benefit under the order that they would have been wiser to rely on COSLA's figures, on which the Government now rest their case.
  I am encouraged to look at the order by the reply that the Under-Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in a letter on 15 July 1985, in which he said:
  "Now that the rebate scheme's main features have been enacted I think it would be best if we were to get on with putting it into practice."

  443
  Given the embarrassment that the order has caused, I concur with the Under-Secretary of State.
  There were two significant developments in the enabling legislation—the duty imposed on a rating authority to give the rebate and the payment by the Secretary of State to the rating authority for its payments, but not the costs that it incurred in making them.
  Does the Minister expect most rating authorities to make a payment or merely to deduct the amount of rebate that might be due? I ask that question because he is giving local authorities that discretion.
  Will the Minister say something about some of the problems that may arise following successful appeals where the ratepayer has to pay back a rebate that he or she has been given?
  Will the Minister also tell us how the order is to be uniformly advertised? He will be aware that the Scottish information office was busy at the time of revaluation trying to soothe ratepayers' anxieties about the effects of rising assessments. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden has elicited the fact that about £3 million of the £30 million will go to the owners of poster sites. I wonder whether Saatchi and Saatchi will be involved in the promotional aspects. Rating authorities will be advertising in the press, but ratepayers will have more general anxieties about the order.
  In Tayside, for example, 7,000 lock-up garages figure among the 12,700 subjects that will benefit from the order.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. Craigen: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. He and I spent many hours together on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984. I pay full tribute to the part that he played in achieving the derating of commercial reed beds. I described it as the "Bill Walker benefit Bill." I wonder whether we are now seeing the lock-ups of Tayside coming into the same category.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in Tayside, especially in Angus, the revaluation has hit badly commercial premises. A substantial number of those premises will benefit from this measure. I acknowledge that lock-up garages are included. The fact that the majority of the shops, especially in Forfar, will benefit is welcome. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the answer to the problem is to get rid of this iniquitous rating system?
  Mr. Craigen: I find the hon. Gentleman's comment about Forfar interesting, because I was reading in a newspaper only the other day about the devastating effect that the problems have caused in Forfar.
  I understand that one of the aspects of the rebate scheme that might disappoint many people is that domestic ratepayers may receive only a small rebate. In West Lothian 50 per cent. may receive £10 or less, and for one in three of the beneficiaries who receive more than £1 it will be in respect of lock-up garages. The Government could have assisted by lowering the threshold from the three times factor.
  The Government have a duty to reimburse the payments that arise from the order, but the rating authorities are anxious about the effect that the order will have on their cash flow, especially in respect of interest charges that may be incurred. I wonder whether, in the 50 per cent.,
  444
  45 per cent., 5 per cent. arrangement that the Minister is proposing, he is giving adequate recompense to the local authorities. They will have to fork out the £1 million cost of operating the order, and also the interest charges involved.
  The point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is of importance, because there is a value for money aspect. On the basis of that £1 million and the £30 million that the order will cost, we are talking about 3 per cent. for administrative and interest charges, the rating system itself collecting about £1,700 million. The Minister gave me a figure of £16 million, approximately the equivalent of 1 per cent., for the entire cost.
  Will the Minister say something about the appeals procedure? There is concern among the assessors that the detailed advice that the Scottish Office finance division put out should answer many of their queries. I know, for example, that the Fife regional assessor is a little perturbed about the terms "lands" and "heritages". I believe that there have been discussions between the Scottish Office and COSLA about the matter, but the regional assessor in Fife is concerned that there are possibilities for litigation in a change of description, from, say, "store" to "warehouse". He feels that many points of litigation could arise unless the Scottish Office spells out in considerable detail some of the anxieties that can arise from the order.
  The regulations are, of course, brought to us in the form that we take them or leave them, because we cannot amend them. The Government have been singularly at fault in the way that they have calculated the costs. They have been mean-minded in not agreeing to recompense the local authorities for the costs that they will incur. I hope that tonight, and in the ensuing Scottish Office circular, the Minister will clarify various points and prevent more people from feeling that they have been rather hard done by because of the way in which the order will operate.
  12.13 am
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that I have caught your eye rather early in the debate. It is interesting to note the rather changed structure of the participants. The great bosom pals of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who were backing him to the hilt in the last debate—the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—seem to have decided that this debate has not the same interest as the previous one. In the circumstances, perhaps one can understand their choice of priorities and the issues on which they choose to intervene.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: Not for the present.
  The order is one which the Minister, a few months ago, might have led us to believe was the salvation of the ratepayers to Scotland, and the salvation—more to the point—of the seats of his hon. Friends. The order as it appears tonight is a long way short of that. The money that will come back to the ratepayers of Scotland now looks like being a little over half of what was originally promised.
  The Government have refused to contribute to the cost of the administration of the scheme by the local

  445
  authorities, and the Minister has already told my hon. Friend that he is unable to give any kind of indication whether anything will be carried forward into next year, leaving many businesses in particular, as well as domestic ratepayers, in a position of considerable uncertainty as to whether they have real relief or just a stay of execution. The running sore of rates in Scotland is causing deep and considerable embarrassment to the Conservative and Labour parties.
  In spite of its willingness to attack the Government, the Labour party is not willing to declare exactly where it stands in relation to the budget in Edinburgh, nor, indeed, where it stands on the future of the rating system. That is not surprising, because if the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East or for Liverpool, Broadgreen were here, they might say they were in favour of rates, because they recognise that the majority of Labour voters do not pay the same level of rates as the majority of voters for other parties. It is therefore a good way of buying votes on the cheap, and the Labour party has not yet come clean about where and how it will reform the voting system.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Member has talked about coming clean. Has he made up his mind about how he would have voted if he had not had a fit of pique before the last Division?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I have been listening very carefully to the debate. It is a short debate, and I remind the House that remarks should be addressed to the adequacy or otherwise of the amounts of rebates and their calculation. Hon. Members should not stray into the debate that ended an hour ago.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am addressing my remarks to the inadequacy of the order.
  The Government have come forward with a botched-up, temporary expedient, which has been announced in a flush of glory. When it is closely analysed, it does not live up to the spectacular announcement made in front of the television cameras at the Conservative party conference. When we get down to the nitty-gritty, we find a squalid and cheap situation, in which the Government are not prepared to give the ratepayers of Scotland the funding which they said they would give back. Nor will they give a firm commitment that such rebates will continue in the future, and that is the only solution which can help to alleviate the problems of Scotland's ratepayers.
  One of the problems facing Scotland is that too many local authorities are squeezed by Government policy. Their rate support grant is cut, and that forces them to increase the rates. In addition, the revaluation effect is proving an even greater problem. The tragedy for the Government is that as a result of revaluation the public have finally discovered that the game is a bogy. The Government claim that they have the interests of ratepayers at heart, but that has been shown to be empty, shallow, and a sham. Their policies over the last five years have meant that the ratepayers of Scotland have paid, year in and year out, more and more for less and less.
  This relief will not cause widespread rejoicing. It just means that ratepayers will be forced to spend more and more for still fewer and fewer services. It is no great relief to ratepayers to he told they will have to pay rate increases of 30, 40 or 50 per cent, and no great relief for them to know that they may yet have to pay rate increases of 200,
  446
  300 or 400 per cent. next year. The ratepayers of Scotland now know that, and any short-term recovery which the Government achieved by producing this deus ex machina has evaporated, as the polls in Scotland clearly show.
  After the next election the Minister will not be able to hold up his head in Scotland. because he and his colleagues will be swept out of office and the city of Edinburgh will return alliance Members of Parliament. They will, of course, be drawn equally from Conservative and Labour-held seats. The Minister would be well advised to take away this squalid order and to return with one that gives to Scottish ratepayers the £50 million which the Secretary of State promised at the Conservative party conference earlier this year. If he cannot do so, I and my hon. Friends will force a Division and vote against the order.
  12.20 am
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall follow the spirit of the debate and speak only briefly. Since you invited us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to address our remarks to the method of calculation, it is strange that the Minister did not explain to the House why £20 million was missing. At the Conservative party conference, the Secretary of State promised that £50 million would be available—
  Mr. Ancram: No; £40 million.
  Mr. Wilson: The Minister says £40 million. but I had the impression that he promised £50 million. Even so, £40 million is still £10 million above the figure that the Minister now says will be available. It is remarkable that, after it was suggested that £50 million would be made available, only £30 million will be provided.
  If the Government could convince us that this was a speculative calculation, that they had to keep the amount within the £50 million limit, and that they were not sure how much they must shell out, I could understand the need to be cautious and not to incur the wrath of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But they have estimated that the cost of the aid will be about £30 million. If they can estimate what a multiplier of 3 will produce, surely they could adjust that multiplier so as to increase the number of people falling within the net and therefore honour the promise made by the Secretary of State.
  If the Government were trying, in desperation, to attract a modicum of political support by promising this aid to ratepayers, it is strange that they have back-tracked on that promise. That sort of thing would undermine confidence in any political party. Indeed, had the Government been floating a company on the basis of that prospectus, they would have ended up in the dock because of promises made but not honoured. The entire procedure is a swindle. The only joy is that this £30 million is £30 million more than ratepayers might have received. However, that will be of no consolation to the ratepayers—including, I suspect, some hon. Members—who had hoped to benefit to a small extent, but who have discovered that they fall just short of the multiplier and will not so benefit. Tens of thousands of ratepayers will be deeply disappointed.
  I cannot understand why the Government will not pay the administrative costs of the scheme. It is a simple matter. If they have so much spare cash, they should give £1 million to our hard-pressed local authorities. Indeed, it is an insult to say that local authrities will not be penalised

  447
  for implementing the Government's scheme. It was a remarkable piece of effrontery by the Minister to say that, given the small sum involved and the fact that the Chancellor had already agreed in principle to give that £1 million to local authorities.
  It is deeply disappointing that the Government have not introduced a new multiplier that would reflect the need to spend the £50 million that was originally offered. Instead, they have restricted aid to £30 million and so lost much of the benefit that this move might have brought.
  12.24 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and I would like clarification on one issue. We understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have said that this is a one-off operation, and is not to be repeated.
  Mr. Ancram indicated dissent
  Mr. Dalyell: The Minister shakes his head, but I think that he had better clarify the matter, because what the Chancellor said is at odds with my understanding—and of course I will give way and be corrected—of what he said.
  Mr. Ancram: I cannot, and obviously would not, without reference to reports of what the Chancellor said, try to quote him exactly. What he was saying was that new money which was available this year would not necessarily be available next year. That does not preclude this scheme being financed in other ways.
  Mr. Dalyell: In what other ways?
  Mr. Craigen: In the same way as the £38·5 million in regard to the Health Service.
  Mr. Ancram: I have said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that these are the matters which are for consideration, and we have to consider all the decisions which we make about expenditure—in particular the matters relating to local government finance, which take place in the autumn. I am not being discourteous to the hon. Gentleman in saying that at this time of the year, before those decisions are taken and before consideration is given to the implications of them, I am not in a position to answer the question.
  Mr. Dalyell: We will look forward to see what happens when autumn leaves are falling.
  Mr. Craigen: I think my hon. Friend should take it that the Chancellor in effect was saying that this is an unrepeatable offer and that, if the scheme continues, it will be at the expense of the general body of ratepayers.
  Mr. Dalyell: I think that we might want, as soon as Hansard is printed, to write to the Treasury and try to get a view from Treasury Ministers, because this is important.
  I am not at all happy about the sheer administrative costs of this operation. If this money were available, there are certain other things in the Lothian area which ought to be done. First, I speak here as much as a Member of Parliament representing Lothian as the member for the main organising committee of the Commonwealth games. Is it understood in regard to the Royal commonwealth pool that the roofing work, unless £750,000 is spent, could become dangerous? I have checked and rechecked this. If
  448
  the money is simply not available for a basic site for the Commonwealth games, where is the money going to come from to do necessary structural roofing repairs to the Commonwealth pool?
  Secondly, is it true that £130,000 is needed urgently for Meadowbank and the James Kane centre and that, if this is not done, both those places may close?
  Thirdly, the Edinburgh cornmarket, which is to
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding great difficulty in relating this to the order.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. it is quite legitimate to talk about alternative uses of this rebate.
  With regard to the Wan-ender baths, which are closed, £100,000 is urgently needed if they are to be re-opened. If they are not re-opened, training facilities for the 1986 games will be open to considerable question. This is very relevant. If the Minister cannot answer now, perhaps he could write to me about it. Paying back comparatively small sums of money with these disproportionate administrative costs is not a very sensible way of conducting our affairs.
  12.30 am
  Mr. Ancram: Many points have been raised in the debate and I shall answer as many of them as I can, beginning with those raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The question of capital allocations for the types of subject to which he referred are also matters for consideration in the autumn, when the Government consider what allocations can be made available. We consider seriously the bids that are made and the priorities put forward by local authorities and try, within available resources, to ensure that, so far as possible, those priorities are met.
  I take issue with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that he feels that the £30 million rebate, which effectively is the cost of the order, is unnecessary and unhelpful, because there are situations—hon. Members will recognise them in their constituencies—where, for instance, commercial organisations, such as small shops, might find themselves faced with rate increases, because of severe revaluations, which could put them out of business. The purpose of the order, as I have previously pointed out, is to try to mitigate the worst effects of revaluation without undoing revaluation itself.
  Mr. Kirkwood indicated assent
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) recognises the value of the order, because originally he asked the Government to provide £4 million or £5 million, and he sees the amounts that the Government are providing are generous. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Linlithgow will reflect on some of the people whose problems and burdens will be considerably relieved by the action that will take place under the order.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) raised again the question of the £50 million and what he referred to as the missing £20 million and the multiplier. In fairness to my right hon. Friend, it is important to recall what he said at Perth, when he announced the sum of £40 million for commercial or non-domestic ratepayers. He referred to a scheme, the cost of which would be about—
  Mr. Dewar: Not "about." but "at least."
  Mr. Ancram: He may have said "at least." I do not have the exact quotation with me, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I would not want to be held to a quotation without having the reference before me. It was clear from that time on that we were talking about a certain cost. That cost, on the best estimates that were available to us at the time, was £40 million for the commercials and, as we announced the following week in the House, another £10 million for the domestics. Those estimates were on the high side. We accept, as more work has been done on the valuations, that the cost will be considerably less.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East criticises the three times multiplier, but we had to take account of setting a level of multiplier at which eligibility for benefit would begin and which would not, of itself, undo revaluation completely. I am sure that he accepts, as an ex-practising solicitor—he may still be practising—who in the House has previously expressed certain expertise on valuation and admiration for revaluation, that it would not have been sensible for the Government to have undone one side of revaluation—the losing side—while leaving the other side untouched.
  We had to set a level which we believed dealt with the worst effects of revaluation. It is, interestingly, a level which is below the average multiplier of revaluation in the previous revaluation. We believe that it was the right figure, and the cost, as I said works out at £30 million.
  Mr. Wilson: I find the Minister's attitude somewhat ingenuous. If Ministers and the Scottish Office were successful in screwing out of the Treasury £50 million, that money should have been made available to ratepayers who are finding it extremely difficult under the three times multiplier to meet increased rate demands for which they have had no opportunity to budget. That extra money would have alleviated the distress that many people are feeling.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman uses the rather indelicate phrase, "screwing £50 million out of the Treasury." It was not like that. The Government arrived at a scheme that involved the three times multiplier, and the cost followed that. That has been the position from the beginning, and it remains so. Opposition Members who, from the end of March and through April, were calling for sums of £4 million or £5 million, now find it difficult to accept that the Government have given a generous provision to aid ratepayers.
  Mr. Craigen rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, even though we have been through this so many times before.
  Mr. Craigen: I have the words spoken by the Secretary of State in Perth. He said that he expected the scheme would help the 50,000 ratepayers who are most badly affected, and that it would cost £40 million. As 62,500 are to be helped over the three fold threshold, why was there that miscalculation in Perth?
  Mr. Ancram: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman talks to assessors, he will find that the analysis takes place over time, and that the evidence presented to us by COSLA, which led to us accepting that the figure would be £30 million, was not given to us until 12 June, because it was also working on the figures. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has confirmed my
  450
  recollection that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had agreed to a scheme then and gave an estimate of the cost.
  The hon. Member for Maryhill asked a number of questions. He asked about the reimbursement of rebates. We have in mind, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told COSLA, that 50 per cent. of the estimated amount of rebates will be paid at the end of September. Most of the balance will be paid at the end of December, with the remaining 5 per cent. awaiting a more final figure from the authorities. That met one of the requests made to us by COSLA.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about advertising and the publicity that would be forthcoming from the Scottish Office. Again, we shall give some national publicity to the order, so that eligible ratepayers know that they need to claim, unless they have not heard from their local authority by the time that the local advertisement appears in the press, on or before 23 September. It is important that it is done that way round, because it was decided on the advice of COSLA that the order should be administered in this way.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the sheriff court appeal and the assessors' concern. The basis of the order is comparison between old and new rateable values on the same property. It is up to local authorities, which are best placed to decide, whether the property is the same. The Scottish Office guidance circular will be discussed with COSLA before we issue it.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the authorities would deduct the rebates from the rates or pay the rebates in cash. Some authorities advise us that they will do one thing, and others the other. It depends on their procedures. There is provision for both those procedures in the order.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the rebate payments that might have to be made after a successful appeal. After any valuation appeal is decided, some payment to or from a ratepayer has to take place. If he loses, he has to pay the 10 per cent. that he has deducted from his bill; and if he wins, the authority arranges for him to be credited or paid back. The order provides in article 6 for the revaluation rate to be recalculated, and for this recalculation to be part of the adjustment to the ratepayer's account, which will have to happen anyway. To put it more simply, it will all come out in the wash when the final adjustment is made.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a singularly unconstructive speech. He is obviously still labouring under the impression that giving aid to ratepayers is some form of warped priority, to use his words, on the part of the Government. It became clear that he would rather not have the order, nor the help that is being given to the ratepayers. He told us that he and his hon. Friends will vote against the order unless the three times multiplier is changed. He knows full well that that is in the primary legislation, not in the order, and is not capable of being changed tonight. It was fully debated when the primary legislation went through, and he did not vote against it then. He has shown his true colours today. He has shown, as Liberals so often do, that all they are out for is the main chance. When it becomes clear to the ratepayers of Scotland that the Liberal party was prepared today to stand up and say that it would rather that the ratepayers of Scotland did not get this £30 million, the ratepayers will be able to judge which party has their interests at heart.
  Mr. Bruce rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Has the Minister sat down, or is he giving way?
  Mr. Ancram: I have finished, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 7.

  Division No. 283]

  [12.40 am

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Ground, Patrick

  Ancram, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Ashby, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  > Hampson, Dr Keith

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Baldry, Tony

  Harris, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hayes, J.

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hayward, Robert

  Blackburn, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Henderson, Barry

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hickmet, Richard

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

  Hirst, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Holt, Richard

  Brinton, Tim

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

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Burt, Alistair

  Jessel, Toby

  Butterfill, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cash, William

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Chope, Christopher

  Key, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K, (Rushcliffe)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Coombs, Simon

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Cope, John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Corrie, John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Couchman, James

  Knowles, Michael

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lamont, Norman

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Latham, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dover, Den

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dunn, Robert

  Lightbown, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lilley, Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Luce, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Farr, Sir John

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Favell, Anthony

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Major, John

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Freeman, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Mather, Carol

  Galley, Roy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Merchant, Piers

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gow, Ian

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Moate, Roger

  452

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Moore, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Speed, Keith

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Newton, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Normanton, Tom

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Norris, Steven

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Pollock, Alexander

  Portillo, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Raffan, Keith

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Rathbone, Tim

  NOES

  Beith, A. J.

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mr. James Wallace.

  Livsey, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Revaluation Rate Rebates (Scotland) Order 1985, dated 9th July 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).
  FOODSTUFFS
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6707/85, a proposal for a Council Directive concerning the examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues, and 4793/84, a proposal for a Council Directive concerning sampling and analysis for the monitoring of foodstuffs for human consumption; and in respect of 6707/85 supports the Government's approach in seeking cost-effective arrangements which will benefit consumers and meat traders and in respect of 4793/84 supports the Government's endeavours to reach an acceptable agreement on the proposal.

  FUEL
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9153/82 and 6544/83, draft Directive and Amendment on crude oil saving through the use of substitute fuel in petrol; and Nos. 8369/83 and 7959/84, draft Directive and Amendment on rationing for commercial road transport between Member States in the case of fuel shortage; and supports the Government's intention to seek implementation of the principles contained therein.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Question agreed to.

  Hospital and Welfare Services (North Down)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  12.51 am
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was successful in obtaining this Adjournment debate, even though it is taking place at nine minutes to 1 o'clock in the morning after a fiercely fought Scottish debate.
  Over the years I have taken many opportunities to draw attention to the parsimonious attitude of the Eastern health and social services board to the hospital and welfare services in the North Down area, and I make no apology for doing so once again. However, it is necessary for me to point out that in addition to the other parts of County Down, the Eastern health and social services board also takes within its jurisdiction the whole of the city of Belfast. Throughout the years this ridiculous situation has worked to the detriment of the people in my constituency and elsewhere in County Down. If it were a parliamentary constituency, the authorities would be accused of gerrymandering, because the boundary of the Eastern health and social services board is so eccentric. It works to the disadvantage of the health of those who live outside the city of Belfast, and it works particularly to the disadvantage of those living in the North Down area—an area of ever-increasing population which has already outstripped the available hospital facilities. This is due principally to the drain of finance and resources away from North Down and into west and north Belfast, two areas of declining population.
  I blame the Eastern health board and the Department of Health and Social Services for the decline in hospital facilities in the North Down area, but in fairness to both it has to be said that the former Stormont Government began the rot. Direct rule is blamed nowadays for nearly every mishap which occurs in the Province, but we must never forget that it was the former Government at Stormont who agreed that Belfast should be included in the area of the Eastern health board, with North Down, Ards, Downpatrick and other parts of County Down.
  The former Stormont Government decided in the early 1970s to build the enormously expensive tower block at the city hospital in Belfast. The cost of that development escalated from £14 million to £60 million. I cannot say that all that money would have gone to the rest of the Eastern health board area if the tower block had not been built, but I am certain that substantial sums and a new hospital have been denied to the North Down area because the tower block voraciously ate up a vast amount of the money available to the Eastern health board.
  The former Stormont Government also agreed vast additional capital expenditure for the upgrading of existing hospitals in west and north Belfast, where the population has been declining for years. As a result of those decisions, severe limitations were imposed on the financial resources of the Eastern health board. That is reflected in the cheeseparing of the budgets for Ards and Bangor between 1983 and 1985.
  The direct treatment costs at Belfast city hospital total about 55 per cent. of all its costs—about the fifth highest proportion in the Eastern health board area. So far,
  454
  no estimate has been made of the consequences of bringing the tower block into partial use later this year and into full use next year. If the experience of other hospitals is a good guide, we can expect the direct treatment costs to increase as soon as the new building is brought into daily use. The hefty running costs of the tower block will drain more vital money away from the North Down area, which desperately needs financial help to improve the health, welfare and hospital services of local people.
  The people of North Down and Ards live in the fastest growing and most urbanised area of Northern Ireland, and everyone in Northern Ireland recognises that fact. The North Down area plan envisages growth continuing well into the next century. Everyone knows that the proportion of elderly people in the area has increased and is expected to continue to increase for the next few decades.
  It is common knowledge that insufficient money has been spent over many years on hospital services for the elderly. I have drawn attention many times to the failure of successive Governments to recognise what is happening to the age distribution of the population, but no action has been taken to ensure that a sensible reallocation of funds is made to take account of the situation.
  A few years ago plans were announced for an extension to the geriatric unit at Crawfordsburn hospital, but nothing has been heard of that recently. The plans have been quietly pushed aside and conveniently forgotten by bureaucracy, yet the proper care of the elderly is urgently required in the North Down.
  While the Government are preaching that more of the elderly should be cared for at home, the health board's officials are announcing the curtailment of meals on wheels services, the closure of day centres and the cutting of other services intended to encourage our senior citizens to remain in their own homes.
  Some people have made representations, as I have, to the Government on behalf of the elderly. We should pay tribute to the contribution to the community that elderly people made over the years of their active lives. I should like to think that in their declining years others would fight their battles for them to ensure their right to a decent life and adequate provision.
  I do not oppose the report of the joint review team in its entirety, as some people do. It contains a few good and sensible ideas, but it has its limitations. Some of its proposals are wholly unacceptable, such as the envisaged community hospitals to replace the existing hospitals at Bangor and Ards. During the seven years that the team took to report, millions of pounds were spent on carrying out new building programmes and on equipment in the north and west Belfast areas. Those programmes helped to consolidate the outmoded policies and thinking which had already deprived North Down of a proper hospital service.
  The compiling of the report began seven long years ago. It alleges that it deals, not with the cost of hospital services, but solely with the hospital requirements for the next 20 years, and how the assessed needs can or should be met within that period, on the basis of the physical resources presently available and which can reasonably be made available.
  I do not believe that the joint review team had coxed the availability of finance and general economic trends at the fore when it considered the facilities required for the area. Central to the thinking of the report is the concept of the community hospital. The fact that that concept has

  455
  not yet been fully accepted or properly thought out has not deterred the team from relying on it. I have not come across one general practitioner in North Down who sees himself helping to staff such a hospital in future. Some doctors, if they have the time available from general practice, are prepared to visit their patients in hospital, but they are not prepared to mislead their patients into believing that a community hospital with the type of profile envisaged by the joint review team report is as good as the present hospital services—bad as those facilities may be in the Bangor hospital.
  One of the most valuable aspects of general practitioner services at present is home visiting by consultants. The family doctor finds that sort of support invaluable. It is available because consultants are located in the local hospitals. If changes are made and the consultants then become located in large teaching hospitals, home visiting will be continued with great reluctance. Moreover, visits to local health centres will eventually come to an end.
  The financial reality is that the Bangor, Ards and Downpatrick hospitals cost considerably less than any of the hospitals in west and north Belfast. The Royal Victoria group of hospitals consistently overspends its allocation. The Mater hospital now costs more per patient than the Ulster hospital at Dundonald. The waste of money that continues at the Royal Victoria hospital can be gauged from the document entitled the "Redeployment of Resources", which was published in July 1985.
  According to the report, the Royal Victoria hospital has been asked to reduce its overspending by £1·5 million. If any further proof were needed to show that the Royal Victoria is the most incompetently managed hospital in Northern Ireland, the report provides it. Yet it is the cost-effective hospitals of the North Down area that are being compelled to make yet another large saving this year, to the grave disadvantage of the people of the North Down area, who deserve better from the Eastern health and social services board.
  The board has been less than honest with the report of the joint review team. It has said repeatedly that the report is not a statement of policy and that it is a consultative document only. The consultation period is stated to last until 30 September. That is what the board says, but in his latest letter to me of 5 July the Minister rather gives the game away. He says that he cannot intervene to stop the board taking irreversible decisions. It appears from his letter, however, that he is happy to accept the main thesis of the joint review team's report and that he actually supports it. I hazard a guess that since 1977 the Minister's departmental officials have been pushing that line of hospital development which the report advocates.
  Mr. John David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Kilfedder: As I have told the Minister, I have a great deal of ground to cover.
  Mr. Taylor: It is on that very point.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I have told the Minister in correspondence that I do not believe that the report of the joint review team is impartial, unbiased or genuine in its examination of the hospital needs of the North Down area over the next—
  Mr. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kilfedder:—20 years. I urge the Government to guarantee adequate hospital facilities at the Bangor hospital and the provision of a casualty department. It is extraordinary and unacceptable that there is no casualty department in an area with a high density population, and a population growing year by year.
  I urge the Government to provide a new acute hospital in the area between Bangor and Newtownards for the people of North Down. Until such a hospital is built, I urge the Government to designate the Ulster hospital at Dundonald as the hospital for the people of Dundonald and the North Down area. That will prevent patients from being sent to the Belfast hospital, which causes even greater difficulty and stress for their relatives in their efforts to visit them.
  The saddest aspect of all recent public expenditure cuts has been the shabby treatment of the elderly in our society. It is indefensible for the Eastern health and social services board to contemplate closing Crawfordsburn hospital, which provides vital geriatric beds in the area. More geriatric beds should be provided at the Ulster hospital at Dundonald, but only in addition to those provided already at the Crawfordsburn hospital.
  It is lamentable that the board, which has the Government's backing, has failed to provide sufficient opportunities to give relief to unmarried daughters who have sacrificed their lives for the sake of their elderly parents, looking after the parents when they are no longer able to look after themselves. Those supportive daughters would benefit from a holiday if their relatives could make regular, short-term stays in a geriatric bed in a hospital.
  The savage reduction in the home help service has meant that elderly people living on their own do not have sufficient help to enable them to manage. One of the many letters that I have received on the subject of home help and welfare provision for the elderly states:
  "My wife suffered a severe stroke 2 yrs. ago, she is now 75 yrs. old, she was in the hospital for a time, until she was over the worst. The stroke left her without power in her left side …
  We have no home help. only a nurse coming once a week to bathe my wife … I will be 80 yrs. old next month and 3 months ago I hurt my back while attending to my wife."
  That letter describes the agony and strain suffered by many people who need assistance.
  The cuts in the meals on wheels services and the closure of a number of vitally needed community centres for the elderly in North Down will make life more difficult for our senior citizens, who deserve better from bureaucracy and society. One senior citizen wrote me a letter stating:
  "Dear Mr Kilfedder
  The senior citizens of Kilcooley,"—
  in my constituency in Bangor—
  "who attend the centre, in Carnalea Meth Church hall, have been told that the centre is closing down. They only have a few hours on Wednesday, and enjoy the activities and lunch (50p) provided. At the moment, they have a quiz going and have got into the finals and are pleased at this achievement, a simple pleasure which costs nothing, so they are to be deprived of even that"
  by the Eastern health board. The lady mentioned that most of the folk in the centre are in their 70s and 80s.
  The public expenditure cuts have not even left out the mentally handicapped in North Down who need more money. The chairman of the Bangor and District Society for the Mentally Handicapped, Mr. Matt Murray, sent me a letter regarding the summer activities scheme at Clifton

  457
  school for the mentally handicapped at Bangor. The school was told that the health board had decided to cancel the scheme. The chairman of the health board stated:
  "The Board regrets any reduction in services to the mentally handicapped but, as you are aware, the Eastern Health and Social Services Board is required to make efficiency savings on an ongoing yearly basis. The Board is doing its upmost to protect priority groups like the mentally handicapped but it is not always possible for them to totally escape the effect of savings."
  Eventually, as a result of offers from Barnardo's, it was possible for arrangements to be made for a shorter and less adequate period of summer help. That help is needed by parents to enable them to have a holiday during the nine weeks' summer holiday when their mentally handicapped children would normally be at home. The parents need that period of respite to renew themselves to look after their relatives.
  I plead with the Under-Secretary of State to help the people of North Down. who desperately need proper hospital facilities and welfare services.
  1.14 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has covered a lot of ground. and I do not have much time in which to reply. He has dealt not only with the long-term proposals for development of hospital services in the area of the Eastern health and social services board, contained in the report of the joint review team, but with the more recent proposals of the Eastern board contained in its consultation document, "Redeployment of Resources." In both cases he has quite understandably concentrated on the effect on the North Down area, which he represents with such distinction.
  The first point that I wish to make concerns the status of the different proposals. The development of hospital services in the Eastern board area is essentially a matter for consideration in the first instance by the Eastern board itself. The board is seeking to establish a pattern of hospital provision which will meet the needs of the people of its area in the years ahead, and to that end it is considering the development of hospitals throughout its area, including North Down. The JRT report deals with those long-term considerations and makes a number of recommendations. The board is consulting on those recommendations, and those consultations will continue until 30 September, after which the board will reach decisions on future hospital provision in its area.
  The hon. Member referred to what I had said to him in a letter. He was selective in his quotation, because I said that where any decisions taken by the Eastern health board involved the closure or change of use of existing facilities, the formal approval of the Department of Health and Social Services would be required. Where the board decides to close a hospital, there are formal procedures that must be gone through.
  Meanwhile, the board has certain financial responsibilities. In common with the other health and social services boards, it is responsible for balancing its budget, for deciding priorities and for living within the available resources. To enable it to live within its enhanced financial allocation for 1985–86, the Eastern board has decided that it needs to look for additional economies. Proposals for achieving them are contained in the document "Redeployment of Resources," and, again, comment from interested parties has been sought by 30 September 1985.
  458
  It is reasonable to consider both sets of proposals at the same time. It would have been curious had the board decided act in any other way.
  I should like to deal, first, with the recommendations in the JRT report specifically—to give it its colloquial name—specifically those which affect the hon. Members constituency. In doing so, I should say once again that these are not proposals of the Eastern board; they are recommendations of the joint review team upon which the Board is currently consulting.
  The review team has recommended that Ards and Bangor hospitals should cease to provide acute care and that the main specialties presently provided should transfer to the Ulster hospital at Dundonald. Both hospitals would adopt a supporting role to the Ulster hospital and fun the broad functions of community hospitals providing post-operative treatment and convalescent care. In addition, they would provide day surgery and outpatient clinics. Minor casualties would continue to be treated at Ards hospital, but all major casualties would go to the accident and emergency department at the Ulster hospital.
  The hon. Member for North Down has talked about the drift of population away from Belfast to areas such as North Down and argued that as a consequence acute hospital facilities should be provided as close as possible to the areas where they are needed. I agree. It is of course. a fact that extension of the catchment population of the Ulster hospital—a point that he mentioned—to include most of the North Down and Ards local government districts is one of the recommendations of the joint review team. The Ulster hospital is accessible to the people of the North Down area. With increasing efficiency in the utilisation of available beds in other Belfast hospitals—a point he properly made—it will surely be a natural development for the Ulster hospital to take an increasing proportion of its work load from the North Down and Ards area.
  On the question of geriatric provision, the hon. Member has rightly drawn attention to the importance of providing an adequate number of geriatric beds for the North Down area. In proposing that Crawfordsburn hospital should close because of its unsuitability for the care of long-stay geriatric patients, the joint review team recognised that the inpatient services currently provided there would have to be relocated at the proposed community hospitals in Newtownards and Bangor, and that capital investment might be required to provide some new accommodation for geriatric patients. That recommendation is included in the consultative process which the Eastern board is currently undertaking.
  Perhaps in the two minutes that remain I can make some general observations on what the hon. Gentleman said. It is completely untrue for people to suggest that the Health Service or the personal social services in Northern Ireland in the past few years have been subjected to cuts. We have seen a real increase in expenditure on the health and personal social services of about 8 per cent. Per capita spending on the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland is 25 per cent. higher than it is in England and Wales, and in the Eastern board area it it 25 per cent. higher than the average for Northern Ireland. We have maintained capital spending in Northern Ireland over the past five years. None of that suggests cuts.
  We have to make more efficient use of the money that we spend on the health services. There is at present an imbalance between acute care and community services.

  459
  We have 30 per cent. more acute care beds in Northern Ireland than on this side of the water. I am very keen to see us develop acute care facilities so that they are nearer to patients, and I am keen to see us develop the role of community hospitals.
  I think that whoever stands at this Dispatch Box answering debates such as this for the next 10 years will be making much the same point—that we need to get a
  460
  better balance between acute care and community services. That is in the interests of the people of the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in the interests of people throughout Northern Ireland. I believe that even if the hon. Gentleman were making this speech—as he might perhaps one day—he would be driven to precisely the same conclusions as I have reached this evening.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past One o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Tax and Prices Indices
  Tax and Prices Indices
  Tax Yield
  Tax Yield
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Band Aid Record (VAT)
  Band Aid Record (VAT)
  Customs Officers (Drug Smuggling)
  Customs Officers (Drug Smuggling)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Customs Officers (Vacancies)
  Customs Officers (Vacancies)
  Airports (Duty-free Facilities)
  Airports (Duty-free Facilities)
  Live Aid Concert (VAT)
  Live Aid Concert (VAT)
  VAT Ceiling
  VAT Ceiling
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  North Sea Oil Revenue
  North Sea Oil Revenue
PRIME MINISTER
  Sulphur Dioxide Pollution
  Sulphur Dioxide Pollution
WALES
  Company Failures
  Company Failures
  MV Bridgeness
  MV Bridgeness
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Voluntary Organisations (Awards)
  Voluntary Organisations (Awards)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Brewster Housing Project
  Brewster Housing Project
  Cabbage Trees (St. Helena)
  Cabbage Trees (St. Helena)
  Famine Relief (Horn of Africa)
  Famine Relief (Horn of Africa)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Argentina
  Argentina
  British Council
  British Council
  Terrorism (Tel Aviv)
  Terrorism (Tel Aviv)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Prisoners (Outside Hospitals)
  Prisoners (Outside Hospitals)
  Street Collections
  Street Collections
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Community Service Orders
  Community Service Orders
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Ethnic Minority Children
  Ethnic Minority Children
  School Books (Hertfordshire)
  School Books (Hertfordshire)
  HMI Report
  HMI Report
  Teachers, Pupils and Schools
  Teachers, Pupils and Schools
  Student Support
  Student Support
  Local Authority Business (Inquiry)
  Local Authority Business (Inquiry)
ENVIRONMENT
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Swans
  Swans
  Smith Houses
  Smith Houses
  Housebuilding
  Housebuilding
  Sewers (Standards)
  Sewers (Standards)
  St. Barnabas Community Centre, Bristol
  St. Barnabas Community Centre, Bristol
  Information Technology Centres
  Information Technology Centres
  Consent Applications
  Consent Applications
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
  Widdicombe Committee of Inquiry
  Widdicombe Committee of Inquiry
  Building Act 1984
  Building Act 1984
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment and Training Schemes (Funding)
  Employment and Training Schemes (Funding)
  EEC Directives
  EEC Directives
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Sheep Worrying
  Sheep Worrying
  Speeding Offences
  Speeding Offences
  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980
  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980
  Travelling People
  Travelling People
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Diligence
  Diligence
  Police (Alleged Assaults)
  Police (Alleged Assaults)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Crown Office (Proceedings)
  Crown Office (Proceedings)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Manufacturing Investment
  Manufacturing Investment
  EC (Trade Documents)
  EC (Trade Documents)
  EC (Health Protection)
  EC (Health Protection)
  High-technology Exports
  High-technology Exports
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Shipbuilding (Aid)
  Shipbuilding (Aid)
  Copyright
  Copyright
  Information Technology Centres
  Information Technology Centres
  BL (Corporate Plan)
  BL (Corporate Plan)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Defendants (Medical Treatment)
  Defendants (Medical Treatment)
DEFENCE
  Military Assistance
  Military Assistance
  Submarines
  Submarines
  Naval Explosions (Solent)
  Naval Explosions (Solent)
  Installations (Ground Defence)
  Installations (Ground Defence)
SCOTLAND
  NHS (Patient Care)
  NHS (Patient Care)
  Agricultural Research and Advisory Services
  Agricultural Research and Advisory Services
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Leasehold Property
  Leasehold Property
  Roads (Ayrshire)
  Roads (Ayrshire)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council
  Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council
  Teachers (Dispute)
  Teachers (Dispute)
  Rate Relief
  Rate Relief
  Fife Regional Council (Expenditure)
  Fife Regional Council (Expenditure)
  Employment Situation
  Employment Situation
  Whisky Industry
  Whisky Industry
  Scottish Institute of Agricultural Engineering
  Scottish Institute of Agricultural Engineering
  Scientific Research and Development
  Scientific Research and Development
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Elderly Mentally Ill Persons
  Elderly Mentally Ill Persons
  Salmon Stocks
  Salmon Stocks
  Inverclyde Training Centre, Greenock
  Inverclyde Training Centre, Greenock
  Agricultural Research and Advisory Services
  Agricultural Research and Advisory Services
  Electricity Boards
  Electricity Boards
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishing Vessels
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fisheries Research Vessel
  Fisheries Research Vessel
  Surplus Food Stocks
  Surplus Food Stocks
  Hops
  Hops
  Grain Surplus
  Grain Surplus
  Peaches, Apricots, Oranges and Lemons
  Peaches, Apricots, Oranges and Lemons
  EC (Intervention Stores)
  EC (Intervention Stores)
  EC (Agriculture Expenditure)
  EC (Agriculture Expenditure)
  Dieldrin
  Dieldrin
  Industrial Fishing (By-catch Level)
  Industrial Fishing (By-catch Level)
  Council of Agriculture Ministers (Meeting)
  Council of Agriculture Ministers (Meeting)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Central Heating (Additions)
  Central Heating (Additions)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Hospitals)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Hospitals)
  Patients Statistics (Hereford)
  Patients Statistics (Hereford)
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Industrial Diseases
  Industrial Diseases
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Dentistry (Sterilisation Methods)
  Dentistry (Sterilisation Methods)
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Armagh Prison (Strip Searches)
  Armagh Prison (Strip Searches)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Central Reference Library, Belfast
  Central Reference Library, Belfast
TRANSPORT
  DVLC, Swansea
  DVLC, Swansea
  Commuter Services
  Commuter Services
  British Airways (Aircraft Purchases)
  British Airways (Aircraft Purchases)
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Bottesford (Bypass)
  Bottesford (Bypass)
  A47 Wardley Hill
  A47 Wardley Hill
  Glaston (Bypass)
  Glaston (Bypass)
  MV Bridgeness
  MV Bridgeness
  Singapore International Airlines
  Singapore International Airlines
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  Roads
  Roads

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.

Lord Mellish
The Right Honourable Robert Joseph Mellish, having been created Baron Mellish, of Bermondsey in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Houghton of Sowerby and the Lord Marsh.

Company Reports: Worker Participation Information
2.47 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order
Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of United Kingdom companies give the information on worker participation required by the Employment Act 1982 in their annual reports.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment deposited the results of the monitoring of employee involvement statements in company reports in the Library on 10th June. The results show that seven-eighths of the reports examined which appeared to be in the scope of the legislation included employee involvement statements; and these included some excellent reports revealing a wealth of voluntary employee involvement practices. More progress is needed, however, and my right honourable friend has taken up the issue with employers' organisations.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reassuring reply to the Question and for his acceptance of the fact that of the 765 companies reviewed less than one-quarter had submitted the required information. Does the Minister recall that this requirement was inserted in the Act by an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, from the Alliance Benches; and does he agree that, in addition to being a statutory requirement, the obligation to involve employees in the business represents good management? Will he take the necessary steps through NEDO, the CBI and also the TUC to ensure that this Act is being observed?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. The survey covered some 665 reports, of which about seven out of eight showed that some action had taken place under the various subsections of Section 1 during the year. But companies are obligated to report only the action that took place during that year and not total involvement. It may well be that other action had
738
been taken before, or has been taken since. However, we are well aware of the point and very well aware of the fact that it is important to involve employees at all stages in a company's operations. I have no doubt at all that my right honourable friend will take it up with vigour with the appropriate organisations.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is it not unfortunate that, in drawing conclusions from its monitoring of responses to Section 1 of the Act, the Department of Employment itself did not stress the need for more to be done by the companies which have responded inadequately or not at all? Is not the purpose of informing and consulting employees to ensure that this country's industrial performance is improved, and will the Government take every opportunity to impress on recalcitrant employers the need to do more in this field?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is taking up with employers' organisations the need for all companies to report on their activities. It may well be, though, that some companies do not report the full involvement of their operations, and this is another matter which we are taking up.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, if industrial recovery is to take place and is to be of the dimension and rapidity that we all wish, it is essential, in order to get the maximum effort from the workforce in the various sectors of the industries involved, that maximum consultation takes place? Experience has shown that where this happens it very often eliminates almost entirely industrial unrest.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if I may quote from one paragraph of Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982, one of the desirable objectives of the section is,
"achieving a common awareness on the part of all employees of the financial and economic factors affecting the performance of the company."
That can only be desirable, and that is the very least of the four tests. I hope that all companies will take suitable steps to ensure that management and workforce alike are fully aware of these facts of life.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether Her Majesty's inspectors of factories have any authority to act in this matter?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, no.

Allotment Gardens: Rents and Status
2.53 p.m.
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 whether, in fixing rents for statutory allotment gardens, local

739
authorities should take into account the recreational status of such plots.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the allotment Acts require local authorities to charge reasonable rents for their allotments, subject to abatements in cases of individual hardship. My department has long urged local authorities to regard the provision of allotments on an equal basis with the provision of other recreational activities.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that that was an exceptionally nice Answer, which is very welcome indeed? But is the noble Lord aware that there is a tendency for heavy rent increases to be imposed for plots not related to recreational facilities? What remedy have plot holders in such cases? May I remind the noble Lord that there was a case in the High Court in November 1981 concerning a rent increase of more than 233 per cent., when the judge came down in favour of the plot holders? Can the noble Lord tell me—this is a very important question—what avenue of appeal is there for plot holders? Can they appeal to the Minister when negotiations with the council fail?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it must be the first time for something like two-and-a-half years that the noble Lord has been pleased by one of my Answers on this subject. I am grateful to him for pointing that out to the House. Rents to be charged for allotments let by local authorities are governed by Section 10(1) of the Allotments Act 1950, which requires them to let their allotments at such rents as tenants may be reasonably expected to pay. As I said in my original Answer, there are of course abatements in cases of individual hardship.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Lord has not really answered the question. Let us suppose that a council makes an increase well above what is regarded as reasonable—and councils are doing it. Who on earth can say what is reasonable under such circumstances? If the tenants feel that the charges are unreasonable, have they the right, after going to the council and protesting, to come to the Minister to appeal? That is what I want to know.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry. The noble Lord is quite right; I did not answer the other part of his supplementary question. The Secretary of State has no locus to intervene in disputes between allotment associations and individual authorities. These are matters for the two parties. But, of course, there is the recourse to law if they feel that they are not being treated properly.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but in point of fact that answer is not at all satisfactory. It costs a tremendous amount of money—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recourse to law costs a tremendous amount of money? In the case to which I referred, one plot
740
holder was prepared to mortgage his house on a matter of principle. I think it is only reasonable that there should be some recourse, without going to law.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Wallace of Coslany: That is the question I am asking, in spite of the interruption of the Chief Whip.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have said in answer to the noble Lord that disputes should be settled between the council in question and the allotment association or the individual plot holder. I have also pointed out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no power to intervene in such disputes.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, he should have.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the persistence of my noble friend is admirable in the circumstances. Having had a couple of days in which to cogitate on the last time he was asked a Question on this subject, will the Minister now tell us how the Government are proposing to break out of this deadlock? The noble Lord says on behalf of the Government that without proof of pressure of need for allotments the Government cannot take action, and yet they will not take action to get the proof. It seems to me that we are in a difficult and ridiculous situation, because my noble friend has proved that there is a great need for something to be done. Has the Minister decided what course of action the Government can take?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have made it perfectly clear that the Government will not take action without proof. The noble Baroness is perfectly correct in that respect. If the situation is as described by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, over several years now, one would have thought that there would have been an enormous number of letters to the Department of the Environment. These have not been forthcoming, which is why I say there is no proof.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that answer. I am sure he will have a large postbag in the next few months.

"Policing London": Video
2.58 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order
Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take regarding the video entitled "Policing London", produced at public expense, and now being distributed through schools and other bodies in London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already

741
condemned this disgraceful film on several occasions. It is a blatant attempt to discredit the metropolitan police for political purposes. We shall continue to take every opportunity to put the record straight.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he agrees that there is something particularly objectionable in making crude political propaganda of this kind available and injecting it into the curriculum of a number of schools in London? Does he not agree that there is something particularly wrong and particularly undesirable about making a film with the almost deliberate intention of worsening relations between children and the police and between the ethnic minorities and the police?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. It is quite deplorable that this film should be shown in schools, and it is particularly despicable that many of those who would deny the police access to local schools have no qualms about subjecting children to this sort of pernicious propaganda for their own ends.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, so that there is no doubt whatsoever as to the view of this House in regard to the police—I am not in any way commenting on any film which in fact I have not seen—may it be clearly on the record that we on these Benches have every admiration for the police force and think they do a magnificent job?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am very grateful for those remarks of the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does the ILEA not have some responsibility for allowing the circulation of this film in the schools under its control? Is my noble friend aware of any action being taken by the ILEA to stop that happening?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the GLC would do well to withdraw the film if it wishes to be regarded as a serious commentator on peace affairs and to rescue any vestige of reputation it might want to retain on this matter.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, taking up a point which the Minister himself made, can he confirm that it is true that in some schools where the film itself is welcome the police are not welcome, and that they are not allowed in even to give advice and help about road traffic safety or, perhaps more importantly, about drugs? Is that not potentially harmful to the children themselves?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords; the noble Lord is quite right. In Hackney in particular, a branch of the National Union of Teachers has voted to decline to allow police to enter classrooms of schools. That is deplorable, and I note that the GLC has not attempted to dissuade those concerned.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of
742
Greenwich, states that the film was made at public expense, can my noble friend say whether that is so? If it be so, will any attempt be made to hold those who made it responsible and to refund the money to the public?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is a disgrace that ratepayers' money should be used to produce propaganda of this kind. The question of expenditure by local authorities for overt political campaigning is one of the matters being considered by the Widdicombe Inquiry into local government practices and procedures. That inquiry was established by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment earlier this year. We await its report with interest.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is it not time that the whole question of propaganda paid for out of public funds, either instigated by or connived at by a public authority, was examined, not only by the Widdicombe Inquiry but in general, and some code of conduct established?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly believe it is important that this matter should be looked into, and that is what the Widdicombe Inquiry is doing.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Education has any powers in this matter? One might have expected him to intervene on this occasion. It is important that the Department of Education should clear itself of the charge of being wilfully "wet".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly the case that Her Majesty's inspectors would see this sort of propaganda. If they do so, they would comment adversely on that fact in their reports. The responsibility would then be on the education authority—in this case, the ILEA—to take corrective action. The reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors are published, and an authority would be very unwise to risk outraging public opinion further by failing to put its house in order.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his remarks this afternoon. Perhaps I may ask him, in the light of the very helpful comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whether he does not agree that it would be particularly admirable if the leader of the Labour Party now asked the ILEA to withdraw the film in question?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that would be very nice to see, and I hope that he will.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would we not all be best advised not to play politics with this matter?
Noble Lords: Oh!

Dental Equipment and Infection Risks
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: 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 ensure that dental surgeons only use hypodermic needles once, in order to minimise the possible risk of patients contracting AIDS and hepatitis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the department issued advice in January 1979 to all dental practitioners in the general, community and hospital dental service on the precautions necessary to avoid the risk of infection from hepatitis in dentistry. This strongly advised the use of a new disposable needle for each patient as a universal practice and that resterilisable needles must not be used. That advice is equally relevant to preventing cross-infection when treating patients suffering from AIDS.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. May I ask her what happens to the used needles? Should there not be a system whereby they are collected in sealed containers and taken to a central point, such as a hospital, to be incinerated?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, arrangements already exist for the safe disposal of clinical waste from hospitals, and, in some areas, from general dental practices, by incineration. The department's guidance, however, requires that all "sharps" from general dental practices should be disposed of in suitable puncture-proof containers specifically designed for the purpose.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, this is a grave matter. Is there not a precedent set by the Admiralty in the year 1714, when it offered a prize of £20,000 of public money for a better chronometer? Could we not offer a prize for a non-refillable hypodermic syringe, again at public expense?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Conservative Party has always welcomed competition. With regard to bottles, which are rather wide of the Question, I am sure that the idea that they be refilled regardless of what they may have contained would strike noble Lords as a bad one.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness was not suggesting that there should be competition in the particular field that is the subject of the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Since the Minister has confirmed that it is supposed to be an absolute rule, confirmed by the British Dental Association and by the dental schools, that syringes should not be re-used, and since there may be evidence that some practitioners are in breach of that rule, would the noble Baroness not consider it
744
appropriate to hold discussions with her right honourable friend the Secretary of State as to whether this matter, in view of its importance, might be considered for legislation in some forthcoming Act?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I am not sure about legislation. General dental practitioners are required by their terms of service to provide their surgeries with suitable equipment. The department's dental reference officer will draw the attention of the dentist to inadequate sterilisation equipment, for example, if the officer observes such in use during a visit to a surgery. Officials will discuss with the appropriate professional dental bodies what action should be taken. One will always have goodies and one will always have baddies, I fear.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that I was not proposing that there should be legislation? In the same way that we have health and safety legislation that is obligatory upon employers, and since this, too, is a safety matter, I was simply asking whether the noble Baroness will consider with her right honourable friend whether this is perhaps a matter that could be dealt with by legislation at some stage.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I will of course ensure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State learns of the noble Lord's comments. I remind the noble Lord that the dentist is as much at risk as the patient. It is therefore in the dentist's own interest to make sure that everything is hygienic.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Minister not agree that anybody who works in the field of medicine and health cannot afford to be described as a baddie, and that they must all be goodies?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I expect that that is in the eye of the beholder.

Business
3.9 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Gowrie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Johnson Matthey Bankers. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on wages councils.

United Nations (Namibia) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to give effect in the United Kingdom law to United Nations Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions on Namibia; to provide for controlling the entry into and the exit from the United Kingdom of all aircraft travelling to or from South Africa or Namibia; to impose duties and restrictions in

745
relation to gold, currency, payments, debts, and the import, export, transfer and settlement of property with South Africa or Namibia; to provide for facilitating the enforcement of the law relating to those matters; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—.(Lord Hatch of Lusby.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1985
3.10 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st July be approved. [28th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble and learned Lord said: I rise to move that the Motion in my name on the Order Paper, the Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1985, which was laid before your Lordships on 1st July this year, be approved.
This order relates solely to Scotland and is made under the provisions of Section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1968. That Act fixed the maximum number of judges for the Court of Session at 19, but it provided that this number could be increased by Order in Council subject to prior approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. The maximum has been increased only twice since 1968—first in 1972 to 20 and then again in 1977 to 22.
The purpose of my Motion is to seek the approval of this House for a further increase of one. The Motion is prompted by the fact that it is now clear that the existing judicial resources of the supreme courts are not sufficient to cope with the continuing increase in work coming before those courts. Nowhere is this more manifest than in the fact that in the Court of Session there is now, on average, a delay of just over a year between the fixing and the hearing of appeals, jury trials and defended non-consistorial proofs. I am sure that noble Lords will share my concern and that of the Lord President of the Court of Session at this state of affairs which, in many cases, is productive of anxiety and indeed hardship for litigants.
Not only has the number of actions brought before the court increased but the complexity of many of these actions, and thus the time taken to deal with them, has also become greater. Noble Lords will have heard of the fluoride case which I believe was cited in legislation already considered by your Lordships' House this Session and which occupied a single judge, on and off the Bench, for over a year. That is by no means unique in that proofs in other defended actions have recently taken a considerable length of time by virtue of their complexity.
It is the burden of criminal work, however, which is making the greatest demands upon judicial time; the more so given the peremptory nature of such work. That of course can lead to consequential disruption for civil business since each judge of the Court of Session
746
is also a Lord Commissioner of Justiciary. On average there are six judges committed to criminal trial courts each week, either in Edinburgh or on circuit elsewhere in Scotland. A further three judges are required to sit in the Criminal Appeal Court for at least two and often three weeks each month.
The increase in criminal business is perhaps best illustrated by considering the number of judicial days spent exclusively on such work. In 1972, for example, 478 days were so taken up. By 1977 this had risen to 700. I take those two years as being the years in which previous orders have come before your Lordships' House. In 1984, however, the number of days required to deal with criminal business was 1,205—that is, some two-and-a-half times the 1972 figure. It is expected that the figure for 1985 will be higher still. Added to this considerable commitment on the judges' time is of course the time taken by the specialised statutory courts and the employment appeal tribunal. Furthermore, one judge is fully engaged as chairman of the Scottish Law Commission. The net result of such substantial calls on existing judge time is now being seen in the current delays in the supreme civil court.
Let me assure your Lordships that this Motion is not made as a first remedy. The Lord President of the Court of Session and his judicial colleagues have done their utmost to contain the situation. For some time the Inner House, the Appellate Court, has sat with only a bare quorum of three judges instead of the prescribed four. Proof rolls have been overloaded on the assumption that some measure of agreement will be reached by parties in certain of the cases appearing on the rolls. Equally, the criminal appeal rolls have also been overloaded to ensure that the criminal appeal business which has now dramatically increased is dealt with as quickly as possible and to take account of the abandonment of appeals which arise at very late stages. In addition, the Lord President has instituted a number of internal reviews to consider ways of eliminating our archaic and outdated practices and procedures and how the introduction of new technology might facilitate the disposal of business.
By far the most obvious attempt to reduce the burden on the Court of Session, however, has been to give the sheriff courts jurisdiction in actions concluding for divorce. Since May of last year, when the concurrent jurisdiction became operative, there has been a movement in favour of the sheriff courts. This movement has been gradual, and of course most actions commenced in the Court of Session before May 1984 are taking some time to work through. As the volume of divorce work falls, so more and more judicial time will be released. It is expected, however, that a number of divorce actions will continue to be raised in the Court of Session.
While each of these measures will produce some savings in judicial time it has been agreed with the Lord President that a further urgent study should be conducted into ways of maximising the use of judicial time. To facilitate an early report, the review body which is being set up with the Lord President's agreement will be a compact group consisting of a judge, as chairman, along with representatives of the Scottish courts administration and of the supreme courts. The review body will be authorised to enlist a

747
contribution from persons with management services skills if such a contribution should be regarded as necessary and can be provided without putting the need for expedition at risk. Its remit is to investigate means by which judicial time in the superior courts may be organised more effectively in order to secure earlier disposal of cases sent to the appropriate rolls of the Court of Session for proof, debate and appellate court hearings; and to report with recommendations.
In the longer term, it has also been decided that there would be an advantage in conducting some research into the escalating number of appeals now coming before the Criminal Appeal Court. Between 1980 and 1983 the numberof summary appeals more than doubled, as did the number of abandoned appeals, while the percentage of successful appeals was halved. The constantly increasing number of appeals is creating a material burden on each of the Scottish criminal courts.
There is of course no shorthand record in summary proceedings, and to enable the appeal court to consider an appeal a stated case has to be prepared by the sheriff or justice and time allowed for the defence to comment and for adjustments to be made in relation to the stated case. These procedures are based on the recommendations of the Thomson Committee and we think it right that there should now be research into these areas.
I have gone into the reasons underlying the need for an immediate increase in the judicial complement of the Court of Session in some depth, and some noble Lords may be wondering why it is that I am not seeking a greater increase. The size of the increase was carefully considered and it was concluded that, against the savings in judicial time which it is hoped might flow from the initiative to which I have already referred, only one additional judge should be requested at this time; not least because it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that the maximum number of judges should be consistent with the amount of work which the surpeme courts are required to undertake. Should the expected increase in criminal business outstrip the savings secured elsewhere it may be necessary to seek a further increase at some future date.
For all the reasons I have set out, I now beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st July be approved. [28th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, any increase in the number of judges in the Court of Session is to be welcomed. We have heard that there have been two increases since 1968, and this present increase of one is now far too little and far too late. I remind the House that the order relates to the maximum number of judges. If we suddenly find that we have too many judges—which has never been the case, in my experience—it is fairly easy not to appoint a replacement when a judge retires.
Many noble Lords will have read an article in The Times today commenting on the problem of congestion due to increased business in the courts in
748
England and Wales. The situation in Scotland is similar, if not worse. While one welcomes the initiatives to look into whether there are methods of dealing with the business more quickly, these researches will take some time, and the matter is urgent. I should have thought it would be quite easy to have an increased number of judges now when one is dealing only with a maximum number.
We have heard many statistics from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. It is my impression—not a statistic—that in the last four years there has been an increase of about 300 per cent. in delays for appeals, and the same situation occurs for delays in cases coming to proof on the civil side. These delays will tend to increase because of the increased criminal work, the recent revaluation of property in Scotland—which even the Government will recognise is liable to produce a heavy load of appeals to the valuation appeal court, which of course have to be dealt with by the same judges—and the new procedure (new for Scotland that is), of judicial review, which is already producing a considerable number of cases which have to be disposed of very quickly if the system is to work.
I suggest that there has been for several years a clear need for the appeal divisions of the court to sit in three courts at one time rather than to continue the present habit of having only two courts available. For this to happen it is necessary that there should be more than one extra judge. I suggest that the number of judges should be increased to a maximum of 25 rather than giving Scotland only one more judge, but any increase is welcome and I do not oppose the approval of the order.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, having heard what my noble and learned friend has had to say, perhaps I may say from these Benches—though I see I am being waved at by my noble and learned friend—that I hope there are sufficient judges in Scotland, because in the jurisdiction of which I have knowledge in England and Wales, the very unfortunate habit has grown up whereby when judges retire by virtue of age or for some other reason, they almost immediately come back and sit on the Bench. If you look at the daily cause list in London you will see that every day there are retired judges sitting in the appeal courts. They are called to this work in order for the appeals to be heard and the work to be done.
I can understand that great judges are called back to do appellate work in the House of Lords and in the Privy Council. I see the purpose and the point of that. But I think it is very unfortunate if, when a judge in the court of appeal retires, he immediately comes back and sits there as an extra judge. I do not know whether that happens in Scotland but I hope it does not, because in my view it is not a sensible system.
Therefore, having heard what my noble and learned friend has said about the number of judges, I, too, am a little surprised that the maximum is now only one more than it was before, having regard to the scale of business which the judges of Scotland, with their tremendous reputation, so skilfully manage to deal with at the present time.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, we Scots are a broadminded people, even the lawyers among us, and we welcome the English—I was about to say "foreign"—intervention into this little Scottish matter. Any step in the direction of reducing the law's delays is surely at first sight to be welcomed, and indeed this particular step is welcomed from these Benches, because delay is perhaps the most significant problem of the law which bears so hard upon the people who are involved with it.
Your Lordships are surely well aware that there is a tendency in the public service, when faced with a problem, to demand of the Government more resources, which means more people and more money. There is also a tendency—I put it no higher—in the public service to present Government with such demands before they have explored exhaustively the possibility of solving the problem or alleviating it by making a more efficient and intelligent use of the resources which are already available. Accordingly, I was particularly encouraged when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate apparently indicated that this situation was very much in the minds of those who have responsibility for the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court of Justiciary.
Against that background, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one or two questions, because I do not share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for the view that the problem can always best be solved by putting more people on the job.
When I was last in the field the Quarter Sessions never sat on a Monday. I wonder whether that is still the situation, and, if so, why is it that they do not sit on Monday? The sheriff court sits on Mondays. I have often asked that question in private and I have never had a really satisfactory answer. When I was last on appeal courts, of course, a significant number of the judges of the Outer House of the Court of Session sat on Saturday mornings, and this was part of the answer which was returned. They dealt in those days with undefended actions for divorce. But I understand that, with the changes in the laws and the procedure and the jurisdiction in divorce, the need for that procedure has gone. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate tell us whether in fact any of the Outer House judges sit on a Saturday morning?
I am not suggesting that people can sit on the Bench for indefinite periods, and I am not suggesting that there should be a maximum period for which learned judges can occupy the Bench, but I wonder whether, by sitting on Mondays, a considerable impact might not be made on the problem of delays so far as the civil work of the courts is concerned. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can tell us.
I think there are two other matters which merit consideration in so far as the delays in the Scottish courts are concerned. The first is the question of whether to any extent the delays have been contributed to by an abuse of the existing Scottish criminal legal aid system which many people in the field think is present.
The final question is to ask whether the noble Lord the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the deployment of
750
the service of the procurator fiscal in the field is efficient. There is a widespread feeling among those still in the field, as was my feeling when I was in it, that it is the failure efficiently to deploy the resources of the procurator fiscal service that is a not insignificant factor in producing delays.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate on getting one judge, though I suspect very much that what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson and the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said is perfectly true: that is probably inadequate. I recognise that there may have been quite a big contest even to get as far as this. I should like the Lord Advocate to remember that this House, so far as understanding it, recognises that there is probably an inadequate number of judges sitting at the present time. I think that I am right in saying that there has been something like a 50 per cent. increase since before the war. My memory is not as good as it was, but the figure is in that order. All that does is to reflect an extremely sad situation which perhaps will require other solutions; but at the moment this is certainly necessary.
Lord Galpern: My Lords, in view of the construction of two additional courts in the existing High Court buildings in Glasgow, would it not be advisable at least to obtain powers to increase the number to 25, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Morton, to be ready for those courts coming into use?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. I recognise that there are always views upon the correct number for an increase; but I take it from what was being said from all sides of the House that at least an increase is felt to be justified. I am grateful to noble Lords for accepting that.
It has been suggested that this is far too little and far too late. That was how the noble Lord, Lord Morton, put it. The maximum number of judges was increased by two in 1977, but the opportunity to take up the last of those two additions was taken in October 1983. Noble Lords will understand that it was taken fairly late in the day and will recognise that the situation had arisen before then. I am dealing with the situation since that time.
In relation to valuation appeals, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, will be well aware that recently, in the last Session of Parliament, there was legislation which, among other things, provided that the valuation appeal court—the court which would deal with valuation appeals—could be streamlined to allow that court to consist of only one judge as opposed to what had previously been a three-judge bench. That will be a substantial improvement—the most efficient use of resources to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, referred.
I would say to my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson that there is a provision within the current Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which would allow judges who have retired but not reached the retiring age of 75 to be recalled to duty on the Scottish bench. I think that I stated in the Second

751
Reading debate that that would be used sparingly, really to take account of sudden emergencies, illness and the like.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, raised the question of Mondays. I can assure him that that matter will be looked at in the review that is to be established. I accept of course that it is only in the High Court that criminal courts sit on Monday. Civil courts have not sat on Mondays. The noble and learned Lord will be well aware that over a considerable period of time consideration has been given to that matter, and the general trend of opinion has been to suggest that the benefits of such sittings are more apparent than real. Perhaps I may put it this way. There are statistics which the Lord President himself collects, and they show that the average number of days per year which are worked by a Supreme Court judge equate very closely to those worked by sheriffs, notwithstanding the fact that in civil matters they do not sit on Mondays. Your Lordships will understand that if there is an increase in the number of cases coming before the courts, there must be adequate time for judges to prepare the judgments in those cases in order that justice can be properly done.
With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, the efficiency of the procurator fiscal service does not bear upon the matter with which the order is concerned. No doubt he can raise the matter if he so wishes on a different occasion, but I assure him that it is nothing to do with the efficiency of the fiscal service. I should only like to put on record that the people in that service do their work under great difficulties extraordinarily well. I am sure that the House will recognise the valuable part that they play in the criminal system in Scotland.
I am most grateful to all those who have spoken. As I say, I take it from what has been said that your Lordships are satisfied that the draft order should be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Bill
3.36 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Offences in connection with alcohol, containers etc. at sports grounds]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, after ("viewed") insert—
("(other than an area to which an order under section 3 of this Act applies)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 9. Perhaps someone will correct me if I am wrong.
Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 21, after ("viewed") insert ("unless that area forms a completely separate and closed section of the ground as provided in section 3(3) below").
Amendment No. 6: Clause 3, page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 33, at end insert ("unless that area forms a completely separate and closed section of the ground where direct contact with those spectators in the external viewing area is
impossible for the duration of the event; it will be a condition of any licence granted to such a part of the premises that any intoxicating liquor sold, supplied or consumed is in conjunction with a meal in those premises, and that intoxicating liquor shall not be sold, supplied or consumed from a period within thirty minutes of the commencement of the sporting event and until thirty minutes after its conclusion.").
These amendments cover the general problem which was discussed at great length at Committee stage—the question of whether private boxes, or suites as they are called, at these football grounds shall be allowed to continue in their present form and to serve alcohol during particular periods. At the Second Reading and Committee stages, the Government expressed doubts as to the validity of the argument that the clubs involved would suffer serious financial hardship if the Bill as it is now written becomes an Act.
I have to express my appreciation of the fact that the Minister here and the Minister of State in another place accorded some of us a meeting on Monday morning to discuss that and other problems; but I think that this was the most urgent one. I was a little disappointed that more was not offered at that meeting. I think that at the Committee stage the Minister said that if there was evidence that the clubs were being adversely affected he would attempt to put the matter right in a public order Bill to be introduced in the next Session. I do not know of any Minister who can guarantee that he will get a slot for anything for which he is responsible in the next Session of Parliament. I know well the competition between the different departments and different Ministers for Bills. In fact, the Minister from another place referred to that Bill or this Bill as a piece of not so profound or important legislation. During the Second Reading and Committee stages both here and in another place it was said that the clubs concerned would stand to lose approximately £4 million. I do not believe that that figure has been legitimately challenged. There was not much time, although we were grateful for the extra day that was given at the instigation of some of the Peers sitting on my right. What is worrying me is that so far the Government do not appear to have any intention of conceding any of the main matters about which we have been particularly worried. To me it seems odd for them to give an extra day and keep saying, "No". They could have kept saying, "No" on just one day and that would have been it: game, set and match.
I have, as I know have other noble Lords, taken the trouble to try to obtain some further information on what this would mean in financial terms to football clubs. I have received a copy of a letter. It will not take me long to quote these figures. I think it is necessary to quote them in an attempt to prevent what I think is a serious and quite unnecessary mistake being made. I have been sent a copy of a letter from the Crystal Palace Football and Athletic Club. It was sent to Mr. Bernard Weatherill, the Speaker in another place; Mr. John Moore, a Minister at the Treasury; and Sir William Clark, who I think is the chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench finance committee in another place. With the leave of the House, I shall quote it:
"The publication of the above Bill prompts me to seek your assistance in setting aside the restriction on the consumption of alcohol in Executive Boxes from which football matches can be watched.

753
"It is our view that such restriction if enacted will lead to financial disaster for those clubs, like ourselves, who have invested very large sums in the drive to provide better facilities for supporters.
"Here at Selhurst Park we do not have Lounge Bar(s) to support the Executive Boxes and our facilities were financed from Brewery Loans and there will be ever-increasing pressure for such loans to be repaid with the severe cutback in barrelage.
"For three seasons now Crystal Palace have NOT permitted the sale of alcohol on the standing areas of the ground yet there has been no re-action at all by the supporters in these areas to the fact that Box Holders have this facility—indeed the private boxes (executive boxes) have 'smoked glass' and it is not readily evident that drinks—alcoholic or otherwise—are being taken whilst matches are in progress.
"We do beg the House to re-consider this aspect of the Bill—the football industry faces enormous problems in this upcoming season—such a restriction will only compound the difficulties.
"Your support in this respect will be gratefully appreciated.
"Yours sincerely,
"R. G. Noades "
Mr. Noades is the chairman of Crystal Palace football club.
I should remind noble Lords who are perhaps not as familiar as some of us with the way in which soccer is financed that the clubs are already suffering grievous losses as a result of the total banning of English clubs from Europe. I have received a similar letter from Leeds United, which is the local club in the area where I live. In order to try to reinforce the argument, I say this. I do not accept for one moment the point that was put forward by the Minister: that the people on the terraces or in the stands where drink is being sold will be outraged or angered if they look backwards to the boxes, which may have smoked glass frontages, and become upset about not being able to have a drink. It must be a very bad game if they are going to look backwards. I should think there would be a worse reaction if one banned drink and then attempted to bring it back, to, as it were, reintroduce a privilege.
3.45 p.m.
I understand that there were 32 clubs considering this kind of executive box. They ranged from Derby County, which raises £80,000 per year from its boxes, to Spurs, which I think is the top one, with £500,000 a year, and, I understand Manchester United, which has also something around that figure. It was obviously impossible in the short time available to contact 32 clubs. As other noble Lords know, our facilities for doing such a thing are very restricted indeed. However, I received a feedback from a number of clubs, I think it was 16. They all followed the same theme. Derby County has 20 boxes, eight of which it will not renew if the Bill goes through as it is. The rest are already tied up in contracts; but due to response received from boxholders, these will have to be revised. They say that a major financial loss to them is anticipated.
Norwich City was a small club but is now trying to survive and establish itself in the big time. It has 20 boxes and it is expecting a number of cancellations, although this will also be due to the fact that they are going down to the second division. They say that they expect serious losses because of this Bill. Chelsea football club has 32 boxes, not all of them sold. The majority of boxholders are awaiting decision on the alcohol ban. Aston Villa and Ipswich say the same thing, as do Leicester City, Queen's Park Rangers,
754
Nottingham Forest, Sunderland, West Brom, Birmingham City and Wolverhampton Wanderers. They all say the same thing in different dimensions. It will be a serious blow to their attempts to finance football and carry out other improvements at the grounds—improvements that everybody thinks are so desirable.
I have obtained a copy of the report to the Belgium parliament of what took place in Brussels. I do not intend to go into the details of it here, but I shall refer to it at Third Reading. It has been said before that judgments made in haste are very often very bad judgments. When I quote this report, we shall have to consider whether or not we are making a judgment in haste which it would be better to reflect on. It frightens me to death to think that people are talking of the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, lasting five years. I should have thought that the least we could have done for football and the clubs as a whole is to say that these provisions should last for one season and then be reviewed, because nobody knows what general effect they will have.
I am in favour of most of what the Bill says about the prevention of the carrying of alcohol and matters of that kind. However, during the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, spoke at some length on this very question that I am addressing to other noble Lords by these amendments. I have just read out the statistics. No doubt in another week's time I could have obtained the rest of them from the other remaining clubs of the 32. However, I have produced to noble Lords a 50 per cent. sampling of those 32 clubs. They all say the same. I think it would be becoming of the Minister at this stage if he could give this matter some sympathetic consideration before some avoidable and very serious damage is done to the national game in this country.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, as I understand it, we are at the moment discussing together in one group Amendments Nos. 1 to 9, with the exception of Amendment No. 5. Amendments Nos. 1 and 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, are really a pair that go together. Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 are a similar pair in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and myself. They are for practical purposes identical, except for a matter of drafting, with Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. The difference in the drafting is unfortunate. It is due entirely to the somewhat phrenetic haste with which this Bill is proceeding through both Houses. It has made it difficult for consultation between noble Lords to be as complete as it might otherwise have been. Therefore, I am very happy to support in principle the approach which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, makes in his amendments, Amendments Nos. 1 and 6.
There are also, as an alternative pair of amendments, Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 in the names of my noble friend Lord Harris, the noble Lords, Lord Mulley and Lord Monson, and myself.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 21, after ("viewed") insert ("unless it is an area to which the public do not have access, whether on payment or otherwise, and which is not overlooked by other spectators").

755
Amendment No. 7: Clause 3, page 3, line 33, at end insert ("unless it is an area to which the public do not have access, whether on payment or otherwise, and which is not overlooked by other spectators.").
These amendments represent an alternative approach to precisely the same problem that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has dealt with. It is unusual to put down in one set of names two alternative approaches to the same problem. It had to be done in this case because of the fact that Third Reading follows Report stage straightaway. My hope is that after we have debated these two alternative approaches, it might be possible to say (because I have retabled both approaches for Third Reading) that if the Government give a favourable welcome to one or other of these approaches we should proceed on that basis at Third Reading.
If the drafting is faulty—I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will not take up time by pointing out where it is faulty. If the drafting is faulty the principle could be accepted by your Lordships on Third Reading. The Bill has to go back to the other place anyway because there are already Government amendments in it. Any purely drafting matters could be put right at that stage.
The real problem that is attacked by the Bill is that of spectators obtaining drink outside the ground, arriving the worse for drink or, in many cases, drunk, and often taking drink inside the ground with them in order to get even more drunk. Those problems are dealt with in earlier clauses of the Bill. They are not the subject of these particular amendments. These amendments really concern the question of drink obtained inside the ground from licensed premises. It is here that the Scottish precedent, about which much has been said on previous occasions, is not really relevant. Not many of the Scottish grounds, I understand, have licensed bars on the premises.
It is of some interest to note that at the recent cup finals in May at Hampden Park, which has no licensed premises, and at Wembley, which has, a rather higher proportion of the crowd was arrested at Hampden Park than at Wembley. This indicates perhaps that the question of licensed premises inside the ground is not really the crux of the problem. Indeed there is, I believe, no evidence to support the general proposition that it is the use of licensed premises inside the grounds that contributes substantially to drunkenness and to violence. That is caused by drinking before the match outside the ground and by drink being brought in.
In those circumstances, what these amendments, in their own way, query is the purpose or the wisdom of the Government's seeking to ban the use of alcohol, the sale of alcohol, at licensed premises particularly where they are premises—the ban applies specifically to this—from which the event may be directly viewed, the wording used in Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill. That hardly applies to licensed bars in the ordinary way. There is, I believe, a bar at Fulham which meets that description. Otherwise, as a general rule, there are very few grounds in this country with licensed premises from which the event may be directly viewed, except for the sponsored boxes about which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has spoken. This is really the issue in these amendments.
756
Your Lordships will know that there are these boxes provided for companies, usually to entertain their guests or staff. They are completely secluded, completely cut off. Drink is available in them but, so far as is known, there has never been any record whatever of any single person in one of these sponsored boxes taking drink that led to his being a trouble to anyone. Yet it is those boxes that will be prevented from being used for that purpose under this part of the Bill. We would suggest that this is totally illogical. The purpose of the Bill is quite obviously to minimise the possibility that violence may be increased at football matches as a result of the consumption of alcohol. No one suggests that this is the case with the sponsored boxes. It is therefore difficult to see what is the case being made for their banning in this way.
The Government case has been put on two different bases at various times. First of all, they have said that if other spectators could see into the sponsored boxes and see people having a drink there, they may have a grievance which might in some way give rise to violence. It is, I think, a somewhat far-fetched argument. Indeed, in the way that the Bill has been drafted by the Government, the test is whether the event may be directly viewed from the box. It follows that it would be only the players who would be able to see what was going on in the boxes. I venture to assume that they would have other things on their minds at the time. It is a slightly far-fetched argument.
However, if there is anything in it, I hope that it is met by Amendments Nos. 2 and 7, under which it is made clear that in order not to be barred the box must not be overlooked by other spectators. I do not believe that many of the boxes at football grounds are overlooked by other spectators. If some are, it is a simple enough matter to put in one-way glass to deal with the matter.
The other objection made on occasion by those seeking to support this part of the Bill is that it is in some way inequitable that there should be people in private boxes able to have a drink while people in the public stands are not able to have a drink. That seems to me, if I may say so, to be egalitarianism gone mad. There are people at football matches who pay more money to sit under cover so that if it rains they do not get wet. No one complains about that or suggests that it is unfair to people standing or sitting out in the open. People sit opposite the halfway line to get a better view rather than pay less money to sit near the corner flags and get a rather poor view. It is, I suggest, a totally false argument to say that there is anything inequitable about arrangements of this sort. It would be insulting to the intelligence of the average spectator at a football match to suggest that he would regard this as being in any way inequitable.
In those circumstances, there are these two pairs of amendments. The effect of the first approach, that of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and myself, in Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 6 is to say in effect, "Let us leave the whole matter to the justices". The justices are aware of the local conditions. The justices have the power in Clause 3 of the Bill to license such parts of the ground as they think appropriate. Let that include the executive boxes. At the moment, they are specifically excluded because of the way the Bill is drawn. Let the

757
justices look at the conditions and the records of the various clubs. If they are satisfied that there is absolutely no danger of any harm to the public, let them license those parts of the premises should they so wish. That is the first approach set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and myself.
The second alternative, as I have indicated, would be to exempt altogether from the operation of the Bill those areas to which the public do not have access, whether on payment or otherwise, and which are not overlooked by other spectators. That would have the effect of removing the sponsored boxes entirely from the purview of the Bill. I hope that one or other of those approaches will appeal to the Government after reflection on the matter. I say at once that I do not urge this simply because the Government's present proposals are illogical. If one was to argue against a Bill every time it was illogical, there would be very little time left for doing anything else.
The illogicality is troublesome in this case because, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, illustrated so forcefully, it may strike a very real blow at some of the most successful football clubs in this country. And our successful clubs are among the best football teams in the world. Many of those clubs are already suffering a crippling blow financially as a result of being barred from Europe. Many of your Lordships may feel that although the spectators should certainly be barred from Europe, there is not much sense in barring either clubs or players who had absolutely nothing to do with the disgraceful violence in Brussels some weeks ago. They are suffering that crippling financial blow.
To add to that the further crippling blow which there will he if the Bill is left unamended and in its present form would destroy the financial basis of our most successful clubs. It would make it difficult for them to police the grounds satisfactorily, to keep their grounds up to date with all the modern facilities that are required, and to maintain themselves as first-class football clubs. In those circumstances, I hope that when the noble Lord the Minister replies he will indicate that an approach either on the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and I have put forward in the one pair of amendments or on the alternative line proposed in Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 might be acceptable to the Government.
4 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the board of directors of Wembley Stadium. I was unable to be here on 11th July, but I read the debate on that occasion and I have read what was said in another place on 3rd July. First, I found myself deeply concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in speaking on the Second Reading debate, singled out Wembley for special mention as if in some way Wembley was one of the worst places for rowdiness and crowd misbehaviour. The noble Lord's honourable friend the Minister of State did the same thing in the other place. We do not have any problems of this kind at Wembley Stadium and we have had only one isolated problem of this kind, which arose about 10 years ago. Therefore it was rather hard on us to be singled out for special mention as one of the
758
places to which this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will immediately apply.
Following the line of argument of the two noble Lords who have just spoken, at Wembley we also have good relations with the local licensing justices, who know the situation at Wembley and who would immediately take note if rowdyism and misbehaviour were to grow up there, and would, on a future occasion, refuse our application for special licences.
What is all this about? This has now become a very difficult situation for organisations such as my own. It has become a matter of over kill; it has become collective punishment. It has developed into a sort of blanket disadvantage for everyone on the basis of serious, yes, but isolated incidents at particular places. It should not go as far as this. The licensing justices have the perfect responsibility in this matter in cases like Wembley and, if we deleted subsection (3) of Clause 3 as is proposed in one of the amendments, could be left to deal with the matter. I would suggest that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has indicated, that is the best way to proceed.
In the debate so far there has been mention of executive boxes. I shall not go over that ground, but at Wembley we do have a glass-fronted restaurant, which is a precisely similar situation. At any one time during the games that are taking place at Wembley 200 people are seated there able to go about their meals in perfect peace, with a glass of wine in their hands. Bearing in mind all the people who are on the terraces in the normal way and who have always seen that taking place, what possible incitement to vandalism or misbehaviour can that be? It is quite monstrous to punish Wembley together with other places in this way when, first, we have done nothing wrong, know how to control our crowds and have a good relationship with the licensing justices and, secondly, when over the years the public on the terraces have been accustomed to seeing all this without raising the slightest objection?
I should like to make one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that there were two batches of proposals: one to delete subsection (3) of Clause 3 and another which talks about executive boxes more directly by referring to places which cannot be seen from the terraces, and that is the burden of the noble Lord's amendment. However, there is also my Amendment, No. 8, which I think is better than the amendment in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder.
Amendment No. 8: Clause 3, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
("(unless that area forms a completely separate section of the ground where direct access to those spectators in the external viewing area is impossible for the duration of the event).").
My amendment says that it should be perfectly possible for a place like the Wembley restaurant to go ahead, provided that we close it off from direct access to the terraces. Why must it be out of view, as is stated in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder? I do not accept that at the Wembley Stadium we somehow need to pull curtains down over the glass-fronted restaurant in order to please anyone. I would say to the noble Lord quite bluntly that my Amendment, No. 8, is a much better amendment. It simply says that, in effect, the licensing justices can

759
give permission for drinking in such places as our glass-fronted restaurant so long as it is:
"a completely separate section of the ground where direct access to those spectators in the external viewing area is impossible for the duration of the event".
If it would help, we would gladly close all the doors where there is any access between the restaurant and the terraces.
There is, therefore, a third alternative to which I draw the attention of the House at this stage. I have stated my own preference, which, as I said at the very beginning of my remarks, is to delete subsection (3) of Clause 3 and to let the justices decide. They are perfectly competent to do so. They do it all the time in cases like Wembley, and if trouble were ever to arise in the future, everyone would know that next time the justices would never get anywhere near offering a licence. Is not that the best punishment and is not this the best way in which to go about it?
Lord Mulley: My Lords, very briefly I want to support the principle of the amendments, and I should like to pay tribute to the Minister and his colleague the Minister of State for so kindly making themselves available to discuss these problems as a way of mitigating the difficulties on the very tight time-scale of the Bill. My own preference, by way of amendment, is to leave the matter to the magistrates, who can look at the merits of a particular case and decide in all the local circumstances.
However, I fully support the case that has been deployed on behalf of executive boxes, which is really a matter for the successful clubs, and one would not wish in any way to damage their success. But I venture to add two points to the debate which have not so far been mentioned.
First, we must recognise that, although the Bill is clearly and understandably directed at Association Football—soccer—it is so drafted that it could apply to any sport. For example, it could apply—I hope to goodness it never does—to Lord's Cricket Ground, which would raise quite a number of other matters. I believe it is essential to remove from the Bill the reference to the "direct view" of the event. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, very persuasively and forcefully said, the only people who would be able to judge what was going on as a result of that would be the players or performers themselves, and we would certainly hope, although sometimes one may wonder, that they were concerned with more important matters. That is my first point.
The second point concerns a problem which has not been mentioned, which is that the intention—I think wrongly in the first instance because there is no evidence that disorders of the character with which we have been concerned occur—is being extended to the Third and Fourth Division clubs. Many of these clubs have attendances of only 1,000 or 2,000 spectators, derive a little money from the sale of alcohol, and possibly have bars—I think this applies in one or two cases—where it could be argued that there is a view of the ground through an open door or something of that character. As a result of the designation under the safety of sports grounds legislation, these clubs are being faced with the most enormous bills. With an average attendance of perhaps 2,000, the average cost
760
of complying with the law will be over £200,000, and many of these clubs will disappear from football altogether, with the consequence that that is bound to have on the more successful clubs, which very often are glad to have players who had their first playing experience in the lower divisions of the Football League. We do not know that the Government may not extend it even beyond the Third and Fourth Divisions.
I hope that at least that is a point to which further consideration can be given. The Government have saddled them, as they feel they must—I think perhaps mistakenly at this stage—with these enormous bills, without any financial help from the enormous revenues the Government get from the football pools levy, and I do not know how they are going to cope. Adding this further burden is something about which I hope there can be some reflection. That is not in the statute, but it is a matter for the Secretary of State to consider after the Bill becomes an Act. I hope, for these additional reasons, that the Government may think again about this direct viewing, which I am sure will have a bad effect on both the successful and the less successful clubs.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am sorry to prolong this debate but I feel that I have a duty to support these important amendments from long personal experience. I have been watching football on and off—rather more on than off—at Old Trafford since 1924. On those occasions I have sometimes watched in company with my noble friend, and therefore I can confirm from first-hand experience every single word that he has said to your Lordships' House on these amendments.
When I look at this extraordinary Bill I find it difficult to believe that those who drafted it have ever seen a football match, although I am prepared to believe that perhaps they have heard a football match described. I feel convinced that had they been on one of these football grounds regularly they could not have failed to be aware of the truth of the wise words of my noble friend Lord Wigoder; namely, that the problem is not the sale of alcohol on the grounds.
Noble Lords who have sat on the terraces know very well that it is almost impossible to get a drink, so long is the queue at the bar. The problem is alcohol brought into the grounds. The alcohol is brought in in the stomachs of some of the fans, in the bloodstreams of many of the fans, and in the pockets of the fans. It is not alcohol bought on the grounds which causes the trouble. It is right to remind noble Lords, in connection with the trouble which caused this Bill, the disastrous and horrifying events in Brussels, that on that particular ground no alcohol at all was for sale. In other words, had this Bill applied to that disastrous match between Liverpool and Juventus, it could not have made a scrap of difference to what actually happened. We ought to bear that closely in mind.
Much has been said about the executive boxes. I am aware of them and I am bound to say that I have watched a match from one of them, as a result of the courtesy and generosity of one of Lord Glenarthur's noble friends, who I know pays a great deal of money for one of those boxes at Old Trafford. Once he invited me to share it. It was very enjoyable, but I personally

761
prefer to be on the terraces, where one feels at lot more involved in events. The fact remains that the executive boxes at Old Trafford are on top of the cantilever stand and nobody at all can see into them, not even the players.
The amount of money involved is considerable: as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, rightly said, something in the neighbourhood of three-quarters of a million pounds. I am not suggesting for a moment that the passing of this Bill unamended would bankrupt most of our major football clubs. What I say is that undoubtedly it would cause them severe financial difficulties when they already have other difficulties with which to contend. I have been calculating in my mind which particular players Manchester United would have to sell in order to make up this deficit. I have made up my mind, but I think I had better not mention any names.
The point has also been made that it is somehow inequitable for people in the executive boxes to be able to have drinks, whereas other drinks are not sold elsewhere. I think this has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. To my personal knowledge, two of the grounds which have these executive boxes have food, drink, and waiter service throughout the whole evening, often after the match, so that those attending the match can wait until the crowds have gone before they get their cars out and drive home, or go home on the bus, or whatever. Two of those grounds which have executive boxes do not have any bars at all otherwise. There has never been any complaint about inequality at those particular grounds. The comments have merely been gratitude for the additional money which has flowed therefrom to the particular clubs.
I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will give a favourable response to at least one of these amendments, or perhaps to the whole collection, and somehow or other meet this point. The problem is drunkenness up to a point, but there are many other factors which have to be dealt with. However, I assure noble Lords from my experience that the drunkenness I have seen occasionally playing a part in some violence on the grounds has arisen from drunkenness brought into the ground, or from drunkenness arising from drink which has been brought in, and certainly has not been purchased on the ground. I repeat that had this Bill in its entirety applied to the disastrous match between Liverpool and Juventus it could not possibly have made a scrap of difference to what happened. I hope we shall get a favourable reply to at least one of these amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise only because every speaker so far has spoken against the present provisions of the Bill and nobody has risen to put any other point of view at all. That is the sole reason for my rising. The logic of this Bill has been attacked. But I must say that for sheer illogicality in one part of his most interesting speech the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, takes the prize. He was arguing, as I understood it, that drink on the football ground is no part of the problem because very little is consumed. He used as his argument the sentence which I shall
762
repeat: "So long is the queue to get drinks that it is impossible to get one". Presumably if so long is the queue, there are many people endeavouring to get drinks. I am not saying that they ought to be blamed for that—
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I am sure that the noble Lord misquoted me inadvertently. What I said was that it was very difficult to buy drink. I did not say that it was difficult to get it, or bring it in, but it is difficult to buy it, which is a rather different thing.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think when the noble Lord reads Hansard he will wonder whether part of his ancestry was Irish. I assure him that I took down what he said, and he talked in terms of the queue being so long for drinks that it was impossible to get one.
Now may I get on with the serious part of the argument? We have to view the whole of this against a very real background. This is not a Bill that has been brought in because somebody has suddenly thought in terms of, "It would be a good idea if we did something about drink in various places, including football grounds". This Bill was brought in, and came from another place, with a feeling of a national emergency that something has to be done to stop a complete cancer in our life—violence. That is, violence all over the place, and certainly violence on football grounds.
Some moving speeches were made at Second Reading. One of the most moving came from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who went back to the days of his youth—which I assure him are not far removed from his present age—where he recollected that he went to matches with his family. It was a family gathering which used to go to football matches. Then I remember he said: "I wonder whether my children would listen to me, but if they did I would tell them not to go now." Is that not a national emergency in a great game that we gave to the world?
I understand that the noble Lord. Lord Harris, was agreeing with my remarks?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it always gives me pleasure to agree with the noble Lord. I was just wondering whether the fact that Lord Wigoder's children could not go to a match constituted a national emergency.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I would have thought that it was an emergency on the Liberal Benches if anybody was prevented from doing anything other than vote Liberal.
This Bill is against a background of something having to be done, and being seen to be done, to deal with this evil. All of us hope that this will be a short-lived Bill and that we shall be able soon to say that things are so much better than we need no longer have these provisions. But while we have them we have to do two things: first, we have to see that one part of this problem which nobody has ever argued was more than a part—namely, the drink problem—is dealt with and it is dealt with equitably (I use the word advisedly). I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and to all my noble friends who have spoken and who have adopted another view, that it is not a proper comparison to talk

763
in terms of some people buying seats over which there is a cover so that they can be protected from the rain and other people who pay a lower price. That is the fortuitous event of climate against which some people feel they need protection and others do not. What is happening here is that there is a rule of law which is that by virtue of an Act of Parliament there will not be drink on sale and if people bring it in they will be committing a crime.
To me it is inequitable. That is not what the Bill says, but I said it on Second Reading and it is an individual view. I believe that everybody should be treated alike. When I hear of the loss to football clubs of revenue, nobody pretends that it is a loss of revenue that they receive from selling drink. I understand that there must be some loss but I think we are being given an exaggerated view. The loss of revenue is supposed to come from people who are supposed to be watching a football match and who say that they know they can get food and non-alcoholic drink but if they are told they cannot get alcoholic drink during certain hours while they are watching the football match then they will not be there. I should have thought that football could do without such people.
Having said that, what does one do if one does not want football clubs to suffer some sort of loss, whether it be a great or a lesser loss? We can do one of quite a few things. To see how many alternatives there are we only have to look at the amendents on the Marshalled List for consideration. There is not a single amendment: alternative methods are sought.
Unless drink is banned from the whole ground during certain hours—personally I was in favour of that at Second Reading, not because I am against drink but because I thought it was fair—provided people do not become inflamed by the injustice of seeing certain other people able to get drink when they cannot, merely because they are not in the executive boxes, possibly that is the best compromise.
I end my few remarks by saying that I so much hope that these provisions will not have to live for very long, but that obviously depends upon the experiment that we are carrying out. I repeat that it is being carried out in an emergency, and a national emergency. But we have to compromise. Maybe the Bill as it stands is the best compromise we can get.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, from these Benches will your Lordships allow a brief intervention in support of the Bill? It will be brief because I am able to say that I agree with every single word and sentence that has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, without any qualification whatsoever. The point is not whether this Bill could have prevented what happened at Brussels. No Bill as such could ever have prevented what happened at Brussels. It is common ground that there is a serious problem. The only issue is how we deal with it.
I ask your Lordships to consider whether the interests of football and the football clubs would be truly served if Clause 3 was deleted and everything was left to the justices. Would this be seen by the international organisations with the banning powers as an adequate response?
764
Furthermore, the amendments are, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has observed, a little confusing because Amendments Nos. 6 and 8, are I think—I seek clarification—in direct conflict. Amendment No. 6 alters the structure of the Bill and Amendment No. 8 merely adds an important qualification. Amendment No. 6 will remove that measure of flexibility which is so desirable to enable the Minister to designate under statutory instrument under Clause 9 and to revoke such designation. Amendment No. 6 also brings the Act into immediate operation, which the structure of the Act as at present devised does not.
Then we come to the exception and to the problem of what we see through the dark glass of the directors' box. I shall not weary your Lordships with such matters. The problems of definition are far too difficult if we run along that road.
Lord Monson: My Lords, to pick up a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so long is the queue of Cross-Benchers trying to get a word in edgeways that more often than not they need a drink more than most!
As the Marshalled List indicates, I support most of the amendments in this group. The Government's basic reservations, as I understand it, are that acceptance of these amendments would lead to such resentment and envy on the part of the compulsorily teetotal masses that violent reactions would ensue. On llth July the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said:
"if spectators who were not allowed to drink and could see other spectators drinking freely in private boxes, it would be an annoyance for them".—[official Report, 11/7/85; col. 402.]
With respect, I believe this to be a flawed argument which does not accord with the reality of everyday human behaviour. Let us imagine the case of a relatively impoverished student who decides to treat himself to a three-course meal. In his university town he has the choice between, on one side of the high street, a licensed restaurant which has a pleasant decor and linen table cloths and where a three-course meal can be obtained for, say, £4·50 and the customer can order a carafe of wine or a bottle of beer or cider. On the other side of the street is an unlicensed restaurant or cafe with much simpler decor, but where much the same sort of menu can be obtained for only £2·50, but the customer will not be able to drink anything stronger than a glass of water or a soft drink.
Because of the state of his finances our student opts for the unlicensed restaurant. Should he still crave a beer after his meal he will have to take himself off to a supermarket or off-licence, buy a can of beer and drink it on a park bench. In other words his financial position does not permit him to enjoy beer with his meal as ideally he would have wished. No doubt this is mildly annoying, but does anybody seriously believe that his anger at this state of affairs would be such that he would immediately sally forth and vandalise half a dozen telephone kiosks? Surely not, my Lords.
As I said, I think the Government's basic proposition is flawed, but in case there should be anything in their arguments, Amendment No. 2 surely provides every possible safeguard.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I wonder if I may say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, extolled the virtues of Wembley rather too much for

765
my memory. The last time I went to Wembley, I thought I was being rather good in providing a ticket for my driver. When I got back after the game and joined him, I expected thanks from him and a few words on how much he had enjoyed the match. He told me that he had had two cans of beer poured over him because he was not a supporter of the right team.
I take part in this little discussion because I was one of those who was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others for believing that it would be wrong to differentiate between the supporter on the terraces and the superior guest in one of the separate boxes. I do not believe—and I agree with my noble friend Lord Mishcon in this—that there is anything to be ashamed of in trying to be fair between one section of our fellow creatures and another. But I have listened to the argument and I have considered the matter further and I believe that it ought to be possible for the Government to accommodate the sort of principle that has been expounded by those who put forward these amendments.
I again agree with my noble friend Lord Mishcon when he says that we are faced with an emergency. But I do not believe that this Bill matches up to an emergency. It is based on an illogicality; it is a small-minded Bill dealing with a small part of the problem that we are faced with. For my part, I simply say this. I do not believe that the apparent illogicality of allowing the entertainment to go on in these boxes would affront my sense of fairness. But, as I say, I hope that the Government will make an effort to meet the various real objections that have been made.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in discussing these amendments your Lordships have shown an understandable concern about the financial effects on football clubs of the ban on drinking and the sale of drink in private boxes and restaurants from which the game may be directly viewed. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, expressed his concern forcefully in Committee last Thursday and he referred to other discussions which had taken place on it. I rehearsed the Government's view about this difficult issue very fully in Committee the other day and I do not propose to cover all that ground and weary your Lordships for too long today; but some noble Lords have expressed doubts as to whether the distinction drawn in the Bill between areas with a direct view on to the pitch and areas without a direct view on to the pitch is a logical one.
I believe that it is logical. The Scottish Act—and we referred to the Scottish Act at length last week—is a precedent in that it bans alcohol and controlled containers from all parts of the ground, public or private, from which the event may be directly viewed. In any consideration of this Bill, we must bear in mind the parenthood, so to speak, of the Scottish Act in relation to this Bill.
The Association of Chief Police Officers tell us that the possession of alcohol, the possession of cans and bottles on the terraces, causes more trouble than in other parts of football grounds because that is where the troublemakers pour the beer (as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, described) over each other and throw their cans and bottles at other spectators or on to the
766
pitch. It seems to me entirely sensible to say that if any drinking is to be permitted at football grounds it should be confined to places where it is least likely to cause trouble; and that, of course, is well away from the stands and terraces.
It has been argued with strength that there is no need to apply the restrictions in the Bill to private boxes because the occupants of these boxes are not hooligans—which of course they are not, and no one is suggesting that they are—and they may be safely allowed to drink while watching the match with no risk to good order or safety.
But the Government never argued for one minute that drinking in private boxes must be curbed because the people in them are potential troublemakers. That has been no part of the Government's argument at all. It would be quite contrary to the experience which the whole House obviously understands. What we have said is that where restrictive measures have to be applied—and there is little doubt that these measures are justified and necessary—they must be applied fairly to all spectators. Of course, it is regrettable that, in order to deal effectively with the hooligan element, the hooligan behaviour of the minority, we have to put the same constraints on the respectable majority. This is the point about collective punishment which was referred to at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and which has been referred to again this afternoon.
Let us be quite clear. The majority of the people in the stands and on the terraces are no less law abiding than those who are fortunate enough to have places in private boxes. It would be very misleading to suggest otherwise. I do not believe that it is essential to the enjoyment of a game of football to have a glass in one's hand while one watches it; and this is a point which was made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, not just today but at the earlier stage of the Bill as well. That applies equally whether one is watching the game from the terraces, from the stands or from a box. I do not accept that the restrictions in the Bill will cause unreasonable hardship to the occupants of private boxes. One has to bear in mind—and this, I think, has escaped the notice of the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder—that all the spectators, not just those in boxes, will have at least equal opportunities for obtaining a drink out of sight of the pitch.
I am not swayed by any suggestions that there exists some kind of automatic right to drink in private boxes. My right honourable friend has made it clear that we attach significance to the implication for clubs' revenue of restricting the sale and possession of alcohol in private boxes. This seems to me to be the major concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. Some loss of revenue is inevitable. I accept that and so, I think, must the clubs. Whether, in the event, the figure will approach the £3 million or £4 million which has been mentioned we cannot yet know. What concerns us is whether the loss in income is to the detriment of the game; for instance, whether ground improvements have to be shelved for lack of money.
We have undertaken to monitor the impact on clubs' income during the coming season. If indeed the impact is as severe as has been claimed, I am sure that

767
it will quickly become apparent; and if the evidence is sufficiently persuasive to justify some relaxation without undermining the principles which lie behind this Bill, we shall consider, in the context of public order legislation, what might be done. I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech as some would have me do, but we shall ensure that any such legislation is sufficiently widely drawn to embrace these matters in relation to the present Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has suggested that discretion might be given to the magistrates' courts to say whether and on what conditions drinking might be permitted in private boxes in sight of the pitch. That would certainly be a possibility which would merit close attention but it would merit it during the monitoring exercise and our consideration of the public order legislation and not in the time frame of the Bill now before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, have suggested that an exception might be made for private boxes which are not overlooked by other parts of the ground or which are fitted with one-way glass. I certainly see the force of that argument, because spectators elsewhere in the ground who were not allowed to drink during the match would no doubt be more likely to be annoyed by the exceptional treatment for private boxes if they could see the drinking going on. I agree that it would be a bad match indeed if those outside looked in and did not look at what was going on on the pitch, but such an amendment would depart from the principle we have applied: the principle of equal treatment for all spectators. That is the meat of the problem. That is the principle upon which this Bill has to rely in this particular case.
Also, I have to point out the obvious flaw to which I referred at Committee stage: that under certain conditions of light people can see into the boxes. That is an inescapable law of physics. This, again, may be a suggestion at which we could look in the future, but I do not think it helps us at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, suggests that drinking in private boxes might be permitted by the magistrates, but only with meals and not in the period beginning half-an-hour before the start of the match and ending half-an-hour after the end. That is a further interesting suggestion and we shall bear it in mind if, in the course of the next season, we conclude that some relaxation of the restrictions in the Bill is justified.
Again, this departs from the principle of equal treatment of all spectators which, as I have just said, has guided us so far. It would also complicate the Bill considerably because, in effect, the period of the "designated sporting event", which is defined in Clause 9, would be different for spectators eating meals in private boxes from all other spectators. I do not think we could reasonably hope to restructure the Bill in a satisfactory manner in the time available to us, even if the amendments were acceptable in principle.
It seems right to take as our starting point the imposition of equal constraints on all spectators, unappealing as they may seem to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others. From that starting point, the clubs will have an opportunity to make their case subsequently for some relaxation in these constraints
768
and to demonstrate that that would be in the best interests of the game and would not put the order and safety of spectators at risk. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, both stressed the importance and the relevance of this Bill at this time to help bring back the reputation of football here and abroad. I do not think I can add much to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said on that. But I think that this is the right way to tackle the particular issue we face, which we all acknowledge to be a difficult and a sensitive one.
I hope that the noble Lords who have supported this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will be content for us to proceed on that basis and, with the assurances about consideration in the future which I have given, will not press their amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I propose to speak very briefly. By way of introduction, I should say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, and to the Minister of State for having met a number of us earlier this week. And I am grateful to the noble Lord for having said that he and his right honourable friends would ensure that in any public order legislation in the next Session or thereafter, the Bill's Long Title would be drawn in such a fashion as to make this Bill amendable. I think that that is important and I am grateful for it having been said.
Nevertheless, the noble Lord will not be astonished to hear that most of us remain entirely unconvinced by this argument about private boxes. I do not want to repeat all the arguments which have been deployed this afternoon and on the last occasion when we discussed this. I must say one thing to him. He used an argument which in my view was entirely justified when he said that one of the great difficulties is that we have so little time that he cannot guarantee that, even if the House wants this particular amendment to be carried, we shall be able to do it in the time that is available.
I hope that those words will be remembered by all sitting in the House today. It is a classic illustration of how dangerous it is to have legislation proceeding on its way to the statute book without proper parliamentary consideration. We admittedly did get a second day, and for that I expressed my pleasure last week when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House indicated that a second day was to be made available. But of course this Bill is being dealt with in two stages rather than the normal four; and that is precisely why the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, used those words a few moments ago. Thus I hope very much that, wherever we sit in this House, we shall look with great caution on any appeal by any Government to pass legislation without going through the normal procedures unless—and this is a very important qualification—it is temporary legislation.
I come now to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. He said that we had to react to this Bill in a particular way because we were faced with what he described as a national emergency. I think that that is reasonable and that most of us are prepared to support this Bill on that basis. But emergency legislation should not be permanent legislation. And the problem is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will recognise, that although we all recognise the character of the

769
emergency—and who could possibly deny it after what happened in Brussels?—what we are faced with at the moment is permanent legislation so far as we are concerned in this House.
It is legislation which, as I think most of us recognise, not only to some degree damages football in this country, but contains within it—this is a point to which we shall come later—the power for Ministers to extend the controls imposed in this Bill on every other sport in this country without any affirmative resolution procedure. So the House should be aware that, although at the moment we are talking about private boxes at association football matches, these provisions could be applied to every sport in this country; and unless we secure changes later this afternoon by means of persuading the Government that there should be an affirmative resolution procedure, at the very least, before that legislation could be extended to other sports, we could face very damaging consequences for the whole of sport in this country.
Most of us, wherever we sit, would, I think, privately recognise that this Bill will not massively change the public order position at football. It will have a useful, marginal effect. To argue more than that would in my view, be to blind ourselves to the evidence that is available. With that, I think I have put the case from these Benches.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I think that the Minister will not be surprised if I have to reject totally that what he has put on the table means anything at all. He has not changed the position one iota since last Thursday and last Monday. I have to say to my own Front Bench that I am saddened that there appears to be such a negative approach. I think that this is what happens when Front Benches in another place go into secret concubine, producing instant answers to very complex problems and hoping that we will rubber stamp them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if my noble friend will give way, I want to assure him that every relationship I have, or another friend had, is entirely legitimate within the bounds of marriage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I plead guilty to an obvious slip of the tongue. Nevertheless, I made the point when I began to move this amendment that we were granted an extra day on the basis of going into the Bill thoroughly and meticulously to see whether it was flawed. I do not think the case has been made adequately by the Minister, or by the one speaker who supported him from behind, who said that our argument was illogical.
The Minister commenced by saying that the Bill is about the sale of liquor or beer in the safest parts of the ground. That was the Minister's statement, not mine. In the safest parts of the ground, you will be allowed to take drink. But can anybody tell me that the boxes that we are talking about are the unsafest part of the ground? I should have thought, in terms of public order, that they were almost vandalproof and
770
foolproof. That part of the Minister's speech was a contradiction in terms.
The Minister also tried to give the impression that I was solely concerned with the finances of football clubs. I have no association with any football clubs. I may watch two matches in a season, but that is all. Now and again, I may go to watch my own team, Manchester City, and I may occasionally go to Leeds. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, misunderstood what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said was that you get only 10 minutes between the first half and the second half in which to get a drink of any kind. That is why most people, if they want a drink, have to go early. But I have never attempted to get a glass of beer at half-time, because there is then a sudden rush. If anybody tells me that someone who has been watching a football match for 45 minutes can run to a bar at Anfield, at Main Road, or at Tottenham Hotspurs' ground in 10 minutes and partake of enough drink to do any damage, I will say that that is a lot of nonsense.
Part of the speech of my colleague on the Front Bench started to sound like a Second Reading speech on what the Bill is about. I take exception to blanket judgments being accepted by people, and to people being punished when they have had no part to play. We have had one game cited here, which was an awful and awesome tragedy. But I have to say that last week FIFA itself lifted the ban on English clubs playing abroad in the rest of the world.
What was England's football record last year as an export in playing abroad? They played 64 matches in the rest of the world, outside Europe, and 96 in Europe, and there was one disaster which nobody would excuse or condone but which could have been avoided, even though the prime factor was some lunatic supporters, not perhaps from Liverpool but from other areas. There were major deficiencies that helped to cause that disaster. So out of 150-odd matches played last year, there was immense trouble at one match; and that is to be regretted.
I take the view that Hitler used to do the same in the last war. If somebody shot one of his gauleiters, he had a cure for that. He had blanket judgment. He shot a whole village and erased it. So we have to be a little careful in talking about accepting judgments to put our image right.
I do not think that the case has been made at all by the Minister. He suggests that we leave it to the Government's good wishes, so that they may study it and perhaps come back with something, but he is not sure that he can come back in the next 12 months. He is not sure that he will get a slot for the Bill. But in my opinion, with the haemorrhaging of the finances of some of the football teams, they will be damaged irreparably. So on that basis I have to test the will of the House.
4.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kearton, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bernstein, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beswick, L.

Monson, L.

Blease, L.

Mulley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Northfield, L.

Bottomley, L.

Phillips, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Caradon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Chitnis, L.

Rugby, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Coleraine, L.

Seear, B.

Craigavon, V.

Shinwell, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Stallard, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Stamp, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Foot, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hall, V.

Thurso, V.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayter, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hooson, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hooper, B.

Ampthill, L.

Hughes, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Inglewood, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jeger, B.

Beloff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Belstead, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bessborough, E.

Killearn, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Boothby, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lawrence, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Longford, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Margadale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Marley, L.

Cawley, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Collison, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Melchett, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Craigton, L.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Mishcon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Ellenborough, L.

Nicol, B.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ennals, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

Oram, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fortescue, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Galpern, L.

Portland, D.

Gisborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rea, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Richardson, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Henley, L.

Rodney, L.

Hives, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Holderness, L.

St. Davids, V.

772

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Selkirk, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Somers, L.

White, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Windlesham, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Terrington, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Tranmire, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Johnson Matthey Bankers
5.3 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
"I told the House on 20th June that if further investigations into the affairs of Johnson Matthey Bankers were to turn up any evidence of fraud appropriate action would be taken. Investigations have been continuing since then. Although, strictly speaking, they have not so far established prima facie evidence of fraud, they have revealed serious and unexplained gaps in the records of Johnson Matthey Bankers including the possibility of missing documents relating to substantial past transactions on certain accounts that are the subject of large losses.
"In the light of this, Johnson Matthey Bankers have today requested the Commissioner of the City of London Police to conduct a preliminary inquiry with a view to establishing whether any criminal offences may have been committed. The result of this inquiry will be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions who will advise what, if any, further action should be taken. The House will of course be kept informed".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Minister for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may say to him that each successive piece of information we hear is turning this incredible affair into not far short of a scandal. It was always difficult to understand how such a large proportion of a bank's loans could be lost so quickly, but now we are told there is to be a police inquiry and there is another possible legal action in connection with a claim against the auditors.
Will the noble Earl the Minister agree that this matter is too serious to be left at that? The Bank of England clearly was involved in a most remarkable degree of incompetence and mismanagement in its primary task of supervision. In those circumstances, while one hopes that the new banking Act, when it reaches the statute book, will help, it must surely be—I hope the noble Earl will agree—in the public interest that when the police investigation is concluded there should be a wider and more general inquiry. Will he agree that only then could the public feel confident that such a scandal could not recur with possible

773
further losses to public funds and, more important, a loss of confidence to a wider community? I hope that the noble Earl and the Chancellor will agree to have such a wider inquiry.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister also for honouring the assurance on the subject of criminal proceedings that he gave to me in the original Statement of 20th June. The noble Earl will recall that the steps which were outlined in the Statement of 20th June were designed to restore the confidence and the status of the City of London. I think that the Statement this afternoon, which gives some assurance that the City is not above the law, will be welcomed in the City and by the general public.
Will the Minister, in pursuance of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, make some statement as to whether there will be a White Paper on this whole affair? The Bank of England report gave a thorough review of all the weaknesses and the lack of supervision that had arisen in this case, but it would be a further reassurance to us in deciding what degree of supervision is necessary if a White Paper were produced and if the Price Waterhouse report, which has been the basis of the steps now being taken, were made public, if that is possible.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my right honourable friend's Statement which I repeated to the House was of course in the nature of an interim Statement in order to honour my right honourable friend's pledge to keep the House informed. I am glad to have had the opportunity to keep your Lordships in the picture as well. I shall have to leave it at that, as investigations are under way. We shall have to see what they produce.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett (and I think they were followed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe), my right honourable friend has promised a White Paper on banking, and indeed a Bill. That would seem to me to be a reasonable undertaking. Obviously it will deal with matters rather wider than this issue, but I should have thought that that will be the time to consider whether what we know about this incident should cause amendment or should have an input into that legislation.
I hope that with those assurances, and in view of the fact that the Government are anxious to keep the House informed about this issue, we can for the moment leave it at that.

Wages Councils
5.8 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement concerning the Government's intentions on the future of wages councils and on International Labour Convention No. 26.
774
"As the House will know, I published in March a consultation paper on the future of wages councils. This canvassed two main options: either total abolition or reform of the sytem, including particularly the limitation of their powers and duties and the removal of young people from the scope of wages councils.
"In addition to the report from the Select Committee on Employment, more than 700 organisations and individuals responded to the consultation paper. While the TUC and individual trade unions favoured retention, the consultations confirmed that there is a widespread dissatisfaction among employers with the present wages council system. The majority of them favoured a range of substantial reforms to meet these concerns. I promised to inform the House as soon as the Government had taken decisions on these matters following the ending of the consultative period.
"The Government's overriding concern is to promote employment and to remove any excessive burdens on employers. The present system inhibits the creation of more jobs and this is especially true in the case of young people. The present powers of wages councils also undoubtedly impose complex and unnecessary burdens on business. The Government believe that the case for radical reform is clearly made and propose to introduce early legislation which will, first, remove all young people under 21 from any regulation by wages councils; secondly, confine wages councils to setting only a single minimum hourly rate and a single overtime rate for those 21 and over.
"I shall also be proposing new powers which will significantly simplify the procedures under which the Secretary of State may modify or abolish individual councils.
"Following consultation the Government have decided to deratify International Labour Convention No. 26 and we shall be informing the International Labour Organisation of our decision within the next few days. The window for denunciation opened in June and it is necessary to give 12 months' notice before the convention ceases to apply. This will therefore mean that, subject to the progress of the necessary legislation in this House, it should be possible to bring into effect changes approved by Parliament as soon as they become law.
"My right honourable friend the Minister Without Portfolio, supported by my right honourable friends and myself, published yesterday the White Paper Lifting the Burden. This set out clearly the Government's determination to reduce burdens on business and to seek in every way to improve the prospects for jobs. This Statement today of a major package of reforms is directed precisely to those objectives and I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place. It is on a subject which has been the cause of a number of questions recently. I have one or two questions to ask the Minister.

775
First, the Statement refers to the number of organisations which submitted consultation papers in support of these proposals. Does not that evidence graphically conflict with the substantial list of organisations, read out by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, last week, which wished to see the status quo retained? I believe that the noble Lord quoted the Low Pay Unit, the TUC, the CBI, the Institute of Personnel Management, the Co-op, and the Retail Consortium, which represents 90 per cent. of the retail trade in this country. If the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is correct—and one assumes that he is—then he was accurate in his remarks. Is it not being suggested that 10 per cent. of the people asked were against maintaining the status quo, but that 90 per cent. were in favour? I should like to know what measure of support there was for this change.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, the list that I read out last week was of organisations which were against abolition. They were not necessarily against reform. That is the distinction that I should like to make clear.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that is correct. I hope noble Lords do not imagine that I was trying to mislead the House in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was not against retaining the full status quo—but he did say that he was against abolition.
One or two points need clarification. First, to remove all young people under the age of 21 from any kind of regulation by wages councils would open the door to exploitation of a kind of which we rid ourselves long ago. I would want to be convinced by the Minister and the Government that that particular feature of the proposals will not result in exploitation. Secondly, it is proposed to,
"confine wages councils to setting only a single minimum hourly rate and a single overtime rate for those 21 and over".
What does that mean? Will they have any say in minimum holidays or overtime rates for additional hours of work? What will be the council's responsibilities? It is ambiguous to declare that the councils will be setting only a single minimum hourly rate and a single overtime rate for those aged 21 and over.
The Minister made clear that the proposals are part of the package which includes the White Paper published yesterday, which is entitled Lifting the Burden, to create jobs. I believe that is the main reason given for the package. But nobody has provided any concrete proof that such will happen. I spent 22 years in a job in which I was responsible for some people controlled by wages councils. The councils were the one weapon that allowed people earning very low wages and working under very poor conditions to earn for the first time anything like a living wage. I am speaking in the main about people working in the catering trade.
Until wages councils were established, such people were seriously exploited by hotels and similar kinds of businesses. I believe that we may be opening the door again to such exploitation. I should like to hear the Minister's response, to learn whether he can put my mind at rest on that issue. I certainly believe that in the
776
Statement there are some serious dangers that we shall live to regret.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for repeating the Statement in this House. We share the Government's concern, in the words of the Statement,
"to promote employment and to remove excessive burdens on employers".
I may first say how glad we are that the Government have resisted the blandishments of those who sought to persuade them to abolish wages councils altogether. As to the substance of the Government's main proposals, we are sorry that they have decided to remove people under 21 from any regulations at all. Speaking on behalf of my noble friends, I have previously put the case for effecting a reduction in the percentage of the adult rate payable to young people, but we fear that to leave them altogether without protection in that regard would be to go too far.
In the case of adults, we welcome of course any reasonable move to avoid duplication and differences between one set of wages regulations and another. We shall need to consider very carefully the implications of setting only a single minimum hourly overtime rate.
As regards the proposed new powers significantly to simplify the procedures under which the Secretary of State may modify or even abolish individual councils, can the Minister give the House any indication of the nature of the powers—the very considerable powers—which the Secretary of State is apparently to reserve to himself? Above all, what part will Parliament play in this matter?
Finally, on the question of the possible abolition of wages councils, will the Minister heed the wise words of the Institute of Personal Management, that a slower rise in real pay for those in work would help to create jobs? That cannot be achieved by unilateral cuts in pay but, in the long run, only by educating negotiators into an awareness of the consequences on employment of their actions, rather than by placing the power for determining wages in perpetuity solely in the hands of employers.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for his comments. I can assure him at the outset of my remarks that the overwhelming majority of employers who responded during the consultation period were for either abolition or reform. This is a Government that consults and listens to what is said in consultations. Reform was clearly in the minds of most employers, and many others, and so reform has been decided upon. But so indeed was the desire to release those under 21 of any inhibitions in order to make this what I believe it really is—a charter for jobs for young people.
It is imperative that we take all possible steps to ensure that young people get the right start in life; and the right start in life is a job. To the extent that this will help (and I believe it will) and experience we have seen in the operation of the Youth Training Scheme over the past year or two has demonstrated that for those under 18 rates of pay for young people on first entry into the labour market are indeed very important for them.

777
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that in view of the considerable public interest, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment was anxious to let the House know at the earliest possible moment of the decision he had taken. In those circumstances, he has come to the House and made a Statement. We must wait until the Bill comes through for the details of how it will operate. I hope that at that time the fears of the noble Lord will be found not to have substance.
It is important to accept that education on the cost of high wages—and the cost is, once again, often paid with someone else's job—comes through and is understood. Of course, abolishing wages councils for those aged under 21, or reforming wages councils merely to set a standard rate and an overtime rate, will not complete that education, but it is part of the process and I hope that the result of that process will soon be apparent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's announcement both in regard to the action taken under the Convention and in regard to younger people. Perhaps I may ask him to clarify two points. First, will it be possible in the Government's further consideration of this matter to take any particular industry now in the wages council system out of it altogether? Secondly, will the great simplification resulting from the decision to go only for a single rate and a single overtime rate enable some economies to be achieved in the high cost of the present substantial bureaucracy which supports the wages council system?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Statement from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment says that he will,
"be proposing new powers which will significantly simplify the procedures under which the Secretary of State may modify or abolish individual councils".
Once again I ask my noble friend to wait for the actual wording of the Bill to see the powers that the Secretary of State may take.
However, I assure the House that as of today no decision has been made, or is contemplated, about abolishing the wages councils. It is still too soon, since this is a very early intimation of the Secretary of State's conclusions, to say what will happen to the wages inspectorate. There may be some redundancies, but it is too soon to say. Again, as soon as the position is clearer I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will inform the House.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if wages councils are being abolished for the under-21s, does that mean that there will be no minimum wage? If so, how will that prevent wages dropping below the level of unemployment benefit, and then supplementary benefit, to which the young people would be entitled if not in work?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there will be nothing to stop wages dropping below the level of benefit save for one factor—they will not attract people to take them. Already we have difficulty with many
778
young people in that over the years we have been tempting them out of jobs and into benefit. I hope that that will not continue. I do not see the slightest prospect in the real world that the situation envisaged by the noble Baroness will obtain.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm, in regard to a single rate and a single overtime rate, that it is a single rate industry by industry, and that each industry will continue to be looked at on its own merits? I take it that it is not an overall single rate and overtime rate.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my understanding is that each wages council will continue for its particular industry and set rates for that industry.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a previous Secretary of State—James Prior—said that interference with wages councils would not ease the unemployment position? Is he further aware that with the ever-increasing number of low-paid workers there is a need for strengthening the wages councils, not weakening them? Does the noble Lord accept that if Sir Winston Churchill, who introduced the wages councils in 1909, were alive today he would share my view that there should be a statutory minimum wage to replace whatever action the Government take, either now or in the future?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am aware that there is an ever-increasing number of jobs in this country. Last year in the United Kingdom alone we created more jobs than the whole of the rest of Europe. I am aware also that although Winston Churchill introduced wages councils in 1909 he also, in 1942, asked a predecessor of mine—the then Minister Without Portfolio—to ask Sir William Beveridge to prepare a report on social security. As a result we have the social security system today, which has greatly transformed the situation. I am aware also that while this Government have abolished 11 wages councils, their predecessor Government abolished 15. There is nothing sacrosanct or sacred about wages councils as such. The real priority of this Government and, I submit, of the Opposition, is that we all take steps to ensure that employment increases so that young people, and older people, all have jobs.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, reference has been made—I did not expect it—to what happened in 1909 when Winston Churchill decided, as President of the Board of Trade, to introduce what was called, not wages councils but protection against the possibility of employers using slave labour, cheap labour. I was appointed by Winston Churchill himself (although why he appointed me I am unable to say; it was a long time ago) when I was President of the Glasgow Trades Council.
For two or three years I had to visit London frequently, along with other independent members. One of them was J. J. Mallon, a social reformer of distinction, and the other was the famous Mary McArthur, the daughter of an Ayrshire draper. They were independent members along with myself. We operated for several years, although in my case only

779
for two years until I left to join the Seafarers Union. During that period we prevented workers accepting wages which were not sufficient to enable them to provide for the necessities of life.
The Minister has just mentioned a point which refers to this matter. I intended to ask a question before reference was made to 1909. If wages councils or something like them are abolished it will be possible for young people to accept employment at wages which are not sufficient to provide the bare necessities of life. What will be the consequence? They will apply for social security. Therefore, there will be far more people applying for social security and you cannot deny them the need for some relief to ameliorate the bad conditions that may exist for them. The result is that it will cost the Government much more money. Has that been considered? What will be the effect on social security outgoings, financial and other, if this is put into operation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I was delighted this afternoon when I saw the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in his accustomed place because I knew that when we discussed wages councils he would remind the House how they came into being. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord's memory goes back far enough to remember the time when people walked with red flags in front of cars; because the world changes, and restrictions and regulations which seemed appropriate at one time are subsequently found to be not so necessary.
5.30 p.m.
The important thing about today's world and about the system of social security which we have built up for ourselves is that it ensures that people do not have to accept wages below minimum standards. However, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that this Statement is about more jobs for young people and that the best way to create unemployment in this country is to set across the board a high minimum wage that employers cannot possibly afford to pay and that will destroy productivity. This Statement is about ensuring that young people have a start in life by getting a job and that those over 21 have a set minimum rate according to the industry and an overtime rate according to the industry. We believe that after all the consultations we have had we are providing what the bulk of people want.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I think everyone agrees that something needs to be done about the use of wage rates, but as my noble friend has indicated, the removal of all young people under 21 from any regulation is an extremely draconian measure. The noble Lord will recall that in paragraph 17 of the Government's White Paper an alternative to the complete exclusion of young people was advanced; this was to put an upper limit on the rate that the councils could set for them.
Does the noble Lord agree that the real question is the ratio of the youth wage to the adult rate and that this could be adjusted as was suggested in that paragraph in the White Paper? Will the Government, before drafting legislation in the autumn, perhaps think again about this and possibly come forward with
780
something along the lines of the suggestion in paragraph 17 of the White Paper?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think it is very difficult to settle on a rate, but I hear every word that is said in this House and I have no doubt at all that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment will read today's discussion and will take that into account.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the regulations of the wages councils as I saw them recently were something over an inch thick, and small employers who employ people under the conditions of those councils find this extremely difficult to cope with. Can the noble Lord assure the House that reducing the minimum wage and the overtime rate to one for each industry will mean an enormous reduction in those regulations? Perhaps he can tell us to how many pages they will be reduced.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that I shall speak to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I have no doubt that when the new regulations come out they will be simpler. I hope that they will be more comprehensible to those who wish to consult them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to relate what he has said to the recommendations of the Auld Committee. Does the noble Lord recall that the Auld Committee recommended the retention of the two wages councils which operate primarily in the retailing and distribution sector? Does the noble Lord recognise that—if I understand rightly what he has said—the minimum protection for juniors will be abolished? I understood him to say in respect of overtime that in effect shopworkers would be very seriously affected. Does the noble Lord recognise that if the Government wish to see progress in their legislative programme in respect of the Auld Report, what is recommended this afternoon is a damaging piece of legislation?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. What is recommended this afternoon fits with the spirit of the Auld recommendations. The retention of councils is consistent with the basic concern of the Auld Committee. I should perhaps remind the House that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that he will look sympathetically at the best way of ensuring that established shopworkers cannot be compelled to work on Sundays.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how warmly this will be welcomed by all those concerned in the tourist industry, as it will at last give the opportunity of employing a lot more young people, particularly vocationally in giving work training which will be of great benefit to them in the future?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will clear up one confusion that remains in my mind, after listening carefully to what he has said. He mentioned that the present regulations tended to reduce the possibilities of employment. Can the noble Lord explain why all the well-intentioned citizens who are members of wages councils take the view that they have no responsibility whatever for seeing that the wage levels which they set permit youth employment at its fullest possible level?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. I am afraid that there are times when I completely fail to fathom the workings of some of the wages councils. This happened particularly before I came to this House, when I was in the Manpower Services Commission and saw wages councils set minimum levels for young people which ensured their continued unemployment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend what effect this will have on apprenticeships. One of the most serious problems today is that self-employed people very rarely have apprentices, and this will raise serious difficulties in the future. The reason that they give is that apprentice wages are demanded which are higher than they can afford to pay. I should like to know whether the noble Lord can say whether this would have any effect on this aspect of our work.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the levels of apprentice wages in those areas of engineering and other industries in which apprenticeship exists are by and large covered by union agreements. But the Government have introduced, if you like, a form of national apprenticeship in the sense that the Youth Training Scheme which will last for two years from next year onwards will certainly cover all those in the distributive industries and all those in areas which are at present covered by wages councils.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Bill
5.36 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Wigoderhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in my judgment, when the noble Lord the Minister replied to the debate on Amendment No. 1, which was really a general debate on this group of amendments, he was not entirely inflexible. He appeared to acknowledge that there was weight in some of the arguments that were being urged upon him and he indicated that the Government would keep this matter under constant review. In those circumstances I propose not to move Amendment No. 2 or indeed the other amendments that stand in my name in this group.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswickhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords I think I shall take the same line as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. We have tested the House on this, so I will adopt the same procedure.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 36 and insert ("is designed normally to hold—

(i) any intoxicating liquor; or

(ii) any other drink, being").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is an amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 2, which deals with the topic of which drink containers may or may not be brought into a football ground. In Committee, the Government moved an amendment to take account of criticisms which had been levelled in another place that the subsection was too tightly drawn. For instance, as originally drafted the subsection would have banned Thermos flasks for tea and hot soup. It would have banned babies' bottles, scent bottles and deodorant aerosols. Those four items were specifically mentioned by the Minister in his speech moving his amendment in Committee. The problem was dealt with by distinguishing between disposable containers and non-disposable containers, and the disposables were caught and the non-disposables were left free.
That amendment was fine as far as it went, but I ventured to suggest that there was a loophole in the shape of the hip flask. I suggested that a hooligan who smuggled into the ground a hip flask containing neat whisky and then consumed the contents might very well put himself in a position to be tempted to use his empty flask as a very nasty weapon, in the event of disturbances breaking out. The Minister suggested that he might be caught under subsection (1) for being in possession of alcoholic liquor, but I do not think he would because I do not believe that the alcohol inside one is in one's possession within the meaning of the Act.
This amendment seeks further to resolve that problem by distinguishing between containers designed to hold alcoholic liquor, and banning those entirely, whether they be bottles, cans, hip flasks or whatever, and then going on to deal with containers for non-alcoholic drink, and distinguishing between the disposables and the non-disposables, and, as the Government amendment did, banning the disposables and letting free the non-disposables. In that way one catches the lemonade can, the Coca Cola bottle, and so on, and leaves free the Thermos containing the hot drink, the baby's bottle and those other items about which the Minister was concerned in Committee.
I trust that this amendment puts the finishing touch to subsection (3) and achieves the result which I think we all seek to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I fully accept the noble Lord's argument that a hip flask, if it is thrown, could constitute a dangerous missile, even though I still seriously wonder whether many hooligans are likely to

783
bring hip flasks to football matches, either hidden on their person or more openly. There are many everyday items which we carry about our persons which can be transformed into weapons or missiles, or indeed are missiles if they are thrown. In Committee I cited coins as an example.
It is not the purpose of this clause, though, to outlaw all such items at football matches but to deal with those items primarily associated with the consumption of drink which have been found in the past to have been used by hooligans as weapons. That was the purpose of the narrower definition which the Government brought forward in Committee. There are many reported incidents of cans and bottles being used as missiles by spectators at football matches. I am not aware, however, of any spectator assaulting another with a hip flask or indeed a Thermos flask. There is little to choose between them as potential weapons or missiles because both are capable of causing injury; and it is of course to the nature of the container and not its contents that this provision is directed.
If a hip flask contains alcohol—and when I spoke about this in Committee I did not intend to indicate that it was the alcohol inside the person but the alcohol inside the flask that mattered—an offence under this Bill will have been committed because the alcohol itself is prohibited. I think it most unlikely that a person attempting to enter a ground, or who is inside a ground, with a hip flask would escape the scrutiny of the police, because they would wish to see whether it contained alcohol. It is perfectly normal for the police to search on reasonable suspicion. I do not think that it is conceivable that if they found a hip flask on someone they would assume other than that it was for the purpose of carrying alcohol. I confess that it is conceivable but not particularly likely that it may contain a soft drink instead, in which case it is no worse than a vacuum flask. But, as I said, if it contains alcohol, an offence has already been committed.
We are not aware of any mischief involving hip flasks at football matches. As I said, a Thermos flask is potentially as dangerous, and may indeed by used for smuggling alcohol into football grounds, but your Lordships have made it clear that Thermos flasks should not be penalised. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that Clause 2 catches all those containers which pose a real threat and which all our experience suggests should be prohibited. I am sure that he will bear in mind that if an article such as a hip flask is used as a missile, the person who throws it at someone else may well be guilty in any case of an assault. I hope that with that reassurance he will withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I accept that if the whisky is still in the flask a person can be caught under subsection (1) for being in possession of the alcohol; but in that event he is not in a frame of mind to use the empty flask as a weapon if there is a disturbance.
The Minister says that there are no instances of hip flasks being thrown. I dare say that there are not. I should imagine that hip flasks to beer cans exist in the ratio of 1:100. Nevertheless, I should have thought
784
that it was worth while covering hip flasks. It is not very difficult. I do not understand the Minister's argument that a Thermos, if thrown, could be as dangerous as a hip flask. I admit that it could be, but that is an argument for banning the Thermos. The Minister's great effort in Committee, in which he succeeded, was an amendment which let in and left free the bringing in of the Thermos, and so I did not think that that part of his argument just now was very convincing.
However, I have not received that overwhelming degree of support for my amendment which leads me to suppose that I should have a tremendous victory in a Division, and so I beg leave to withdraw
it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Licensing hours within sports grounds]:
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 6, I should point out to your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 7, 8 or 9.
Lord Dean of Beswickhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of our previous discussions and the undertaking that the Minister gave that as a matter of policy the issue will be kept under review, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("in contravention of conditions or restrictions imposed by or") and insert ("at any time that is excluded from the permitted hours by virtue of this section or in contravention of conditions imposed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment designed to ensure that a highly technical defence should not be available to be exploited by persons who ignored the ban on sales of alcohol otherwise than in accordance with an exemption order granted by a magistrates' court. It could possibly be argued that the reference to restrictions in Clause 3(10) does not apply to sales outside permitted hours because subsection (1) of the clause does not directly impose a restriction but operates to modify restrictions which already exist under the general licensing law. This amendment cures that drafting defect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Supplementary provisions about orders under section 3]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("or the grant of a protection order in respect of the premises").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I undertook in Committee to consider a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, whose concern was that if a football club suffered an unforeseen change of licensee, which under the provisions of Clause 4(2) would bring to an end an exemption order granted

785
under Clause 3, the provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the Schedule to the Bill could mean that the club would be faced with a period of at least 28 days during which there would be a prohibition on the sale of alcohol and no power for the magistrates' court to determine an application for a fresh exemption order. I accept that the present provisions of the Bill could cause hardship in such circumstances, and this amendment is designed to alleviate the problem.
As I indicated in Committee, I am not persuaded that there is a problem in relation to transfers of licences, since it is a protection order, not a transfer, which will initially be sought where the change of licensee is sudden and unforeseen. This amendment accordingly relates only to protection orders, but I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this is sufficient to ensure that clubs will not suffer through no fault of their own. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, yes, I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister. This matter was drawn to my attention by my noble friend Lord Crawshaw of Aintree, and both he and I are grateful to him for having met our point completely.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Closure of bars]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("constable in uniform") and insert ("police officer in uniform of rank not less than a Sergeant").
The noble Lord said: I raised a similar amendment on Committee stage and, from speaking across the floor of the House, I thought we had arrived at a compromise. I hope that the Minister will accept the words that are now in the amendment because they are a version of what we considered at Committee stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way? I rise only to help. It may be that I am completely wrong but I am looking at page 6, line 28 of the Bill as amended in Committee, and no such words as the noble Lord quotes occur in it. It is only a technical point but I am therefore wondering whether he has the right line, or whether I am wrong, in which case I shall apologise. If he has not the right line, may we get the right line and therefore move on formally, otherwise I think that any amendment, if passed, will be ineffective?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on my print of the Bill, which is the Bill as amended in Committee, if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, looks at page 6, line 28, he will see the last two words: "a constable"—or at least half the word "constable"—on that line. I think he will find that it is there.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister. I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful. I thought it was right. I do not want to waste any more time. I want to put this point across. I do not want to make the same points that we considered last week.
786
There is a principle behind all this. We in this country have procedures whereby every junior man or girl joining the police service takes an oath and in his or her first week of service has every power that the most senior men have. Consequently, in these early stages it is normal for the young people to be carefully looked after. However, in conditions like those at football matches, it could easily be that a junior man might find himself in a position where he is asked to carry responsibility which is more than he should be asked to shoulder in his early days. Therefore, we have here the conflict between dignity and responsibility on the one side and, on the other, the young men who may perhaps be prepared to move more swiftly—which was something that the Government suggested to us last week as being important. I should like to think that in a situation where one single police officer on the premises has to close down a bar because of a disturbance, it ought not to be necessary to rely on a very young police constable. On football grounds there are bound to be very large numbers of police officers working in small groups, serials, as we call them, probably led by sergeants. Thus there is no reason for the suggestions made by the Minister because our system should be based on that. I should like to think that we weight the argument in favour of the more experienced men, including sergeants. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly appreciate my noble friend's concern that the power in the Bill to close bars during a match must be exercised with the utmost care. I listened carefully to his remarks, not only today but also at Committee stage, when he mentioned the difficulty about young police officers. He was supported by others of your Lordships in Committee. I have considered them carefully but I am afraid that I am not in the least persuaded that this power should be limited to officers of at least the rank of sergeant.
Constables already exercise considerable powers under the general law in the course of their duties. Under this legislation they will have further powers of arrest as well as associated powers of arrest. I am confident that they will exercise these new powers responsibly. Indeed, I am quite sure that my noble friend, with his experience, would expect them to do so.
During our discussion earlier, I referred to guidance on the Bill's provisions which will be issued to the police. I undertake to my noble friend that this guidance will refer to the need for great care in the exercise of the Clause 6 power. In principle, I agree with my noble friend that, where possible, it would be desirable for an experienced officer to take the decision. But the point of Clause 6 is that it enables the police to respond quickly to potential trouble. It may well be that a sergeant is not immediately available or is fully occupied elsewhere in the ground. It must then be for the constable on the spot to take prompt action. We must not tie his hands unnecessarily. I cannot really believe for one minute that the police would think that such a tying of hands was the right way to proceed.
If a constable sees unruly behaviour developing in a particular bar, he must be able to do what is necessary

787
to stop it. He has to do it fast. If he is able to consult a sergeant or somebody more senior first, then certainly it would be most wise for him to do so. Time permitting, he would surely seek that kind of advice. If he cannot—which is quite possible—he should not be obliged to stand helplessly by while the trouble becomes worse.
I understand the sincerity with which my noble friend moves this amendment. I believe that this would be an unnecessary difficulty so far as maintaining the kind of order which concerns us. I hope that he will understand that and not press his amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the argument has arrived at exactly the same point as we left it last week. I should not like to take up time by pressing the matter any further today. However, I should like to make the point that this is not the only country in the world where men are endowed with police powers on the very day that they are sworn in and become members of a service.
I cannot see all the arguments that the noble Lord has just given to us about the sergeant and the police constable. I am not sure that those of us who applied our minds to it could not see the police constable and the sergeant in a somewhat different position where there could be difficulty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment rather than to pursue this argument. However, if any orders, or this Bill or any parts of it come up in a year's time, perhaps we may have the same arguments again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Powers of enforcement]:
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 40, at end insert—
("The organizers of such event or events shall not be required to make any payment for a police presence in the ground or for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act unless the organizers request a presence in excess of the numbers considered necessary by the Chief Constable concerned for the fulfilment of such statutory and related duties.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13. I want to make the point quite shortly that there is a new principle, in so far as the police, as set out in Clause 4, have a statutory right and duty to be present at football grounds. No one will complain about that because quite clearly it is important that when the Bill becomes an Act it should be properly enforced.
The present practice, which is already a matter of controversy, is that, in relation to football clubs—and, I imagine, the other sporting grounds to which the Bill refers, although we know it is the intention at the present time to deal only with football grounds—the Bill as drafted gives the police this statutory duty and right, to which we make no objection. However, at present, because football grounds are private property, although in a sense in a public domain (and that is why we are treating this Bill as an emergency measure), the clubs have to pay, and I think in some cases pay very heavily, for the presence of police at the grounds. In some cases, although they raise no objection if the police want to come, there is controversy because the police are not invited. The argument is that if the
788
police are not invited to be present on private property, no charge should be levied on the football clubs.
I have in mind particularly the clubs which are less well off financially and which will be faced with very considerable costs—understandably, following the tragedy at Bradford—in improving their grounds and other facilities, quite apart from any financial consequences that might flow from the Bill itself. There is no reason why sporting clubs alone should be responsible for the police carrying out what are clearly public and statutory duties.
6 p.m.
So far as I have been able to discover, there is no other instance in which the police, invited or otherwise, attend on private property. I suspect, although I cannot be certain within a yard or two, that when there have been picketing problems during disputes involving the National Coal Board or other firms—I do not need to detain the House by going into details—the police have been properly there to enforce the law concerning picketing. There is no suggestion that anything other than normal ratepayers' funds should be required to pay the police concerned.
There was recently trouble at Stonehenge. I have heard no suggestion that the Department of the Environment or its subsidiary body is paying the cost. I understand that the Wiltshire ratepayers are having to pay. It is a new principle to give a statutory duty and right to the police to be present regardless of any wishes of the club. Although football clubs will raise no objection to police being there to carry out their duties and to assist, they should not be required, in my view, to pay if they have not invited the police, or asked for them.
This is, as I say, a new principle. Whitehall takes a long time to consider new principles. I do not expect the Minister to be able to say today that he will accept the amendment, although I am sure that it would be widely welcomed in the sporting and football world if he could do so. However, as we are to have future legislation, I understand, when some of these matters may be raised again, I hope that the Minister will say that this aspect of the Bill and its consequences will be reviewed. If he is able to do that, I would not wish to press the matter further. It is a point of great concern to many clubs. They would be interested to know that at least the responsible bodies in the Home Office are considering this aspect. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? How does he intend that payment should be made for special constables when they are on duty at matches wearing virtually the same uniform as regulars? The amendment suggests the words "a police presence".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would allow the Question to be put?
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I have moved the amendment in anticipation that there will be a reply from the Minister. I understood that the noble Lord was asking me a question under the formula, "Before the noble Lord sits down". I imagine that special

789
constables at football grounds, unless they are specifically invited by the club against the advice of the chief constable concerned, would be paid out of public funds, as for any other of their duties.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. It was, I believe, my error. I apologise for interrupting my noble friend's flow.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's argument, as he has, I think, realised. The police have a general duty to preserve law and order for the benefit of the whole community, and for this reason they are funded by the whole community. It is, however, for the organisers of events such as football matches, which attract large crowds, to ensure that adequate provision is made for the maintenance of good order inside the grounds. Normally, the club and the chief constable agree together the level of policing which will be necessary inside the ground. In most cases, agreement is reached amicably. But of course, there is the possibility of a difference of opinion. If there is, in most cases agreement is reached, and that is in the interests of both the force and the club.
It has been the view of successive Governments that the costs of special police services should be paid in full by those using the service and that no part of these costs should be allowed to add to the general level of police expenditure, and thus to the burdens of taxpayers or ratepayers. It is entirely right and proper that where football clubs request a police presence inside grounds during matches the cost of their presence should be borne by the clubs themselves. Any additional policing provided outside the ground—for crowd control and traffic control, for instance—does not count as a special service and is therefore met from public funds.
These are long-standing arrangements, and my right honourable friend does not consider that this Bill should be the occasion for any change. The noble Lord has suggested that the Bill imposes a statutory duty on the police to be present at football matches. Not so, my Lords. Much of the general law already applies in football grounds, but the police are not required by law to be present at all times to enforce it. The Bill does not alter that position. The new law will be there, with the necessary powers for its enforcement. It will still be for the chief constable to take the operational decisions about the deployment of his officers. And we must be clear where the responsibility for enforcement lies. It is with the chief constable. It will not be acceptable for the clubs to sit back and expect the police to shoulder the whole of the burden. The clubs themselves, and their officials, must play their own part actively and willingly, and to the full. Anything less simply will not do.
I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment. From what he said, it appears that he did not expect me to be able to accept it. I understand his concern about the financial implications, especially for the smaller clubs, of having to pay for a police presence. I am not convinced, however, that the burden for what, after all, is the enjoyment of watching a game—one does not go to Stonehenge to watch hippies in the same way as one goes to a football match to watch players on a field—ought to be shifted on to
790
the ratepayer and the taxpayer at large. The cost of police officers deployed outside football grounds on match days is not, after all, charged to the club.
Certainly the topic goes far wider than this Bill, which relates only to football matches and only to one aspect of control at football matches. If we were to consider changing the Police Act provision in the way proposed by the noble Lord, we should need to consider all the special services provided by the police, including those at other sporting events. So it goes even wider, I believe, than the noble Lord thinks. That is all I have to say. I hope that the noble Lord feels convinced.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord said, rightly, that there is general agreement between the club and the police as to the number of police officers on duty in the ground. Surely, however, subsection (1) extends the position. Surely, it means that a constable or constables may insist on entering the ground if, in their view, they feel it is necessary for them to intervene for some reason, even though the club may think that the situation is all right. If a constable enters on his own volition, does that mean that the club is liable to pay for him?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as regards any policing within the football ground, it would be the responsibility of the club to come to an arrangement with the police on the cost of providing that service. As I understand it, the dates of the games are arranged in advance and policing is therefore arranged in advance. If extra police are required to meet a particular public order requirement, I dare say that the arrangements which have been considered earlier may be modified, but I would not necessarily suspect that in every case they would be modified. As I understand it, the cost will have been discussed beforehand with the police.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, how can the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, say that Clause 7(1) deals with an agreement between the club and the force? Here, surely, it is making provision for a constable to enter the ground irrespective of what other agreement has been reached. If that entry is made by a constable or constables, surely the cost of that should not fall upon the club.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may explain that the need for the constable to enter is in order to enforce the provisions of the Act. The cost of normal policing arrangements within a club are agreed upon beforehand. Essentially, as I understand it, there would be no request; the police would be entering the club to deal with an emergency. I am sure that that meets the noble Lord's concern.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I can well understand that the Minister cannot possibly know all the details of all the existing arrangements. However, it happens to be a fact that a number of clubs have not invited, and have made it quite clear that they do not wish to invite, the police to be present (although they have no objection to the police being there) because they are unwilling to shoulder the costs. To my knowledge, in

791
a number of cases they have not paid the police and naturally a dispute has arisen.
As my noble friend Lord Beswick said, the Bill changes the circumstances by making it a duty on the police to be present to enforce what is in essence the licensing laws, The police have a proper right and statutory duty to enter public houses, and so on, to ensure that the licensing laws are enforced, but as far as I am aware there has never been any suggestion that the publicans or breweries concerned should have to pay the policeman's wages for his execution of those duties.
Therefore, we have a new situation, and I hope that the Home Office will not close their eyes to this aspect in the wider context of public order, which I trust that they are considering at the present time, and will in due course bring forward legislation. It is a wider point than the narrower one of football matches; but the Minister has spoken entirely in the context of football grounds. I stress that the Bill is not drafted to deal with football grounds. It is a very wide Bill, and confers very wide powers and duties. No football club would dissent from the view that the police must have access, but they maintain that, just as the police have access to enter other places to enforce the law, that is part of their general duties and the cost should not fall on the club or on the spectators who attend the matches. However, because this is a wider matter—and I understand that at present the Government are unable to deal with it—I shall not press the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before my noble friend asks leave to withdraw the amendment, if that is his intention, perhaps I may make these remarks. With great respect to the noble Lord the Minister, there is a substantial point here in regard to the charges of the police, and not only for the reasons that my noble friend has soundly given: namely, that the police are not invited but will be there, and so on. My noble friend Lord Beswick raised the point that under Clause 1 of the Bill a constable may see fit to enter the ground in order to see whether the licensing laws are being adhered to. He may then find that they are not; and that may be a voluntary step by the police.
Apart from that point, what worries me is that the practice of chief constables throughout the kingdom may well vary. There may be quite a bit of unfairness in some areas where chief constables may take the view that a great many police ought to be present, especially if they do not have any urgent matters to which their constables ought to attend. In other areas, where the police are rather more hard-pressed, an entirely different view may be taken.
In those circumstances, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister, without in any way agreeing to an amendment of this Bill at this stage, would consider the points that have been raised and, without waiting for legislation (and that is why I rose as I did before my noble friend Lord Mulley concluded his speech), would consider giving guidance or even directives to chief constables throughout the kingdom as to the fairness of the imposition of charges in these circumstances and as to when charges should or
792
should not be made. With guidance of that type being given to chief constables, at least we would achieve uniformity of treatment, and that would be fair.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords—
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I will willingly give way to the noble Lord the Minister if he wishes to intervene.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, we are still in the middle of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was about to ask the leave of the House to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who asked whether I could elucidate a couple of points. It is in that spirit that I now seek to speak.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me, but we are in the middle of the speech being made by the mover of the amendment.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am very willing to let the Minister intervene.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in rising to speak, I am simply trying to clear up in advance one or two points which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made. I do not intend to confuse the House, and if the House thinks that I ought not to intervene, then I shall sit down and speak later. However, I should like to cover two matters. One concerns invitations to attend, which is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. Because there is no invitation and the constable attends to deal with a particular emergency, that does not raise a charge; so there is no concern. As regards variations in the way in which chief constables may deal with particular circumstances, and the need for guidance, all I can do is to note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I honestly cannot give an undertaking on the matter now. I do not believe that there need be the concern that the noble Lord expresses, but I am sure that it is a matter that all will bear in mind.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, it is a wider point than the matter of football clubs, and if, as the noble Lord says, it can be further considered, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Interpretation]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 22, after ("section") insert ("relating to an association football ground").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if, with this amendment, I speak to Amendment No. 15, as they deal with the same point.
Amendment No. 15: Page 8, line 24, at end insert—
("but no order in respect of any other sporting ground shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
I believe that we could describe Amendment No. 14 as the "Ascot" amendment in the light of our interesting discussion on Second Reading. This is the issue whether the Secretary of State should have a power to extend the provisions of this Bill beyond the game of football to other sports in this country. First, why do we have a Bill at all? We have a Bill, first, because of what happened at Brussels and the appalling loss of life that took place there; and, secondly, because that event at Brussels occurred following a series of disorders at a substantial number of football grounds within England and Wales. On this—and there is not much dispute in this respect —the Government have said that they entirely agree that this Bill is related to the game of football. In the House of Commons Mr. Giles Shaw, the Minister of State, at col. 437 on 3rd July, said:
"I reiterate my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance, also given on Second Reading, that we have no immediate intention of designating sports other than soccer".
On the basis of that assurance, two questions arise. First, why is there any need for this Bill to extend to any sport other than football? We have not had a single argument deployed so far in the debate as to why this Bill should extend beyond football, save for the examples I propose to give in a moment. Examples which, I should have thought, indicate how fanciful this particular issue is in reality.
As the House is aware, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to extend its provisions to any sport such as cricket, tennis, speedway, golf, or to any sport at all. At Committee stage my noble friend Lady Seear asked whether it could be extended to Ascot. Indeed yes, she was told, it could be extended to Ascot. The exchanges in the Official Report are, in my view, some of the most remarkable that one has had the opportunity of reading in Hansard of either House. We start with the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, at col. 381 of our proceedings on the last occasion we discussed this Bill on 11th July. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said:
"The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, expressed mild horror that this could, in certain circumstances, apply even to Ascot. She suggested that that was quite unthinkable.
Baroness Seear: I did not feel that it was unthinkable that it should apply to Ascot, but unthinkable that Ascot should need it. The Government are not bringing this legislation in for fun, but because they think that there may be a riot. Can the noble Lord seriously contemplate a riot at Ascot? That is what I was saying.
Lord Glenarthur: I cannot, but what I am suggesting to the noble Baroness is that we ought to be prepared to think about the unthinkable. It is our job to anticipate these things. The noble Lord"—I think he was referring to me at that stage—
"says that riots do not take place at cricket matches, but there have certainly been examples, I believe, in Australia".
Apart from the detail that we are not, unfortunately, members of the Australian legislature—and indeed if we were no doubt we would take that matter very seriously—we are talking about provisions in a Bill which provide power for Ministers to extend it to other sports, and if and when he or any future Secretary of State does so, he creates new criminal penalties, as a result of which people can be fined, sent to a detention centre, and so on.
As I have indicated, apart from the two rather remarkable examples I have just cited, I do not believe that any serious case has been made out why we
794
should agree to allow Ministers to have these powers in the first place. As I said on the last occasion, I think we should be aware of what would follow if we agree that the Bill should be extended in this manner, say at a race meeting, which of course brings in the Ascot example, or a county cricket match if there is some disturbance at a particular game and a Secretary of State in the future decides, on the basis of that disturbance, that he will extend the Bill to cricket and thus bring in Lord's, the Oval, Headingley, Old Trafford, and Trent Bridge.
There would first be the controlled container issue. This is a matter I dealt with on Second Reading and in Committee. It would in fact literally mean that the 12 year-old with his bottle of orange squash at a cricket match lasting seven hours would be committing a criminal offence were he to have that in his possession.
Of course it would be, I would say, an even graver offence to be found with a bottle of champagne in your possession at Ascot. It is easy to make light of what is involved here, but I challenge the assumption that Ministers should be armed with powers of this sort unless they can make out an absolutely overwhelming case for Parliament providing them with those powers.
It is not just a question of the sports I have cited. There is a great deal of concern so far as speedway is concerned. My honourable friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in another place has serious concerns in his community as to what will happen about sponsorship at speedway meetings. Whether in fact commercial sponsors are going to be quite so free with the backing they have given to this sport if they believe that Ministers are, at some stage, going to bring in these draconian powers and apply them to games other than football.
It is true that the Home Secretary has said that he will not extend the Bill in this way. But of course that assurance holds good only so long as the present Home Secretary remains in office. But as we know there is a fairly substantial turnover of Home Secretaries, and it may well be that somebody in the future will take the view that it is right and proper to extend this legislation in this way.
I know that the Minister will say that our fears and anxieties are entirely needless. But of course he is not, as he would be the first to acknowledge, responsible for the management of any of the sports that I have referred to this evening. He has not any direct financial responsibility for them. Of course he has not. But the people in these sports are seriously concerned.
Since this matter was discussed last week I have been approached by the chairman of two county cricket clubs asking why they were not consulted. They read in the weekend press for the first time that this Bill could be extended to the game of cricket. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, this question: who has been consulted about this other than the football clubs? It was right to consult the football clubs, but have any of the other sports been told that the Government are taking powers to do these things? The House would probably be interested to have the answer to that question.
If we are going to give these remarkable powers to a Minister to extend the provisions of this Bill to other sports, it seems to me not unreasonable that he should

795
have to come to Parliament and get authority in advance from Parliament by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. That is what we are asking for in these amendments. We are not even denying a Minister the power to do this. I think he would be a particularly foolish man were he to do so, but nevertheless all we say here is that before a Minister is entitled to extend the provisions of this Bill to sports other than football, he should come to Parliament to justify it and only be enabled to do it if he got affirmative resolutions carried in both Houses of Parliament. I find it impossible to see what credible argument can be mounted in the face of that.
If indeed this is emergency legislation, and we have been told constantly from both sides of the House that it is emergency legislation, there is a clear obligation on Ministers not to take more than the bare minimum of powers necessary in order to deal with that emergency. What many of us are most concerned about in this Bill, quite apart from the way in which it has been handled, is this enormous power which we are conferring on Ministers to simply extend this to other sports, and the only protection that the sports concerned and Parliament would have would be the negative resolution procedure, which in the circumstances is, frankly, wholly inadequate. I beg to Move.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, in view of the invitation by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to think the unthinkable, I want him, as a member of the MCC, to recall that at the recent Lord's Test there was not only an invasion of the ground but a great Australian bowler, Mr. Thomson, was probably deprived of taking his 200th wicket. If some fanatics were there, some incident could have occurred at, in my view, the headquarters of cricket. It is not so unthinkable as he may have suggested. Therefore, if it is only about football, this seems a reasonable set of amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support this important pair of amendments. The Bill as presently drafted gives a future Secretary of State quite alarming powers. I stress the word "future" because while no doubt the present Secretary of State would always try to act reasonably, there is no guarantee that his successors in the decades ahead will invariably do so. The phrases "sporting event" and "sports ground" as defined in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, and as essentially restated in this Bill, are extraordinarily sweeping. "Sporting event" means:
"any physical competitive activity at a sports ground".
"Sports ground" means:
"any place whatsoever which is designed, or is capable of being adapted, for the holding of sporting events in respect of which spectators are accommodated".
Cricket matches have already been mentioned, and so has Ascot, but many other sporting occasions could theoretically be swept into the net. Ascot was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and other noble Lords on the Alliance Benches at an earlier stage. One could also extend this to horseracing at Epsom, Aintree, Doncaster and elsewhere; to greyhound racing at the White City, if it
796
still takes place there—it is more than 30 years since I first had an excellent meal there while watching the racing—to tennis at Eastbourne or Wimbledon; and to showjumping at Wembley and elsewhere; and boxing and wrestling, of course, are included. But also, as I interpret the Bill, snooker and darts could be included if any direct or indirect charge were made for admission to the competition. I suppose it is possible to visualise spectators at a darts tournament refreshing themselves with glasses of lemon barley water or nourishing mugs of cocoa. However, I find it somewhat difficult to do so.
The trouble is that whenever what one might term an "overkill" provision such as this goes on to the statute book, sped on its way by ministerial assurances that of course the sweeping powers conferred by the clause will never in practice be used in their entirety, one can be certain that sooner or later—I can see that it will probably be later—they will be so used. I urge the Minister, or, failing him, the House, to accept this wholly reasonable pair of amendments.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the arguments at all, but as greyhound racing has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I must declare an interest here. I must make it clear to your Lordships that greyhound racing would not disagree with anything that was looked into there because it is family entertainment. People take their families, and to my knowledge there has never been any trouble. But it raises the question whether it is a sport in the strict sense of the word because there are no people involved. All the sports that have so far been mentioned have involved people taking part. As we know, in greyhound racing only dogs run round the track and the people watch. There is no fear in greyhound racing, which is family entertainment, as to the provisions of the Bill.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I rise to make two points which have not so far been made in this debate, and at the same time I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with every word spoken by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich on this very important amendment. I believe, as he does, that if the Government genuinely believe that they will not use this power then they should not retain this power in the Bill, or should see to it that any extension should be subject to the affirmative process in both Houses.
The points I wanted to make are, first, that I see the possibility of a need arising for an extension. The sport I have in mind is boxing. There has been one example when a ring in England was pelted with beer cans on one occasion, and it is possible that on a future occasion the Government might feel that it was necessary to extend these provisions to that sport. If they do so feel, then I believe they should come back for an affirmative resolution in both Houses to do so.
My second point of particular interest which has not yet been covered but is of some importance is that the noble Lord will probably be aware that certainly two association football grounds in England and Wales—in this Bill we are concerned only with professional sport—have been used on an alternate Saturday basis by rugby league teams, which are not covered by the Bill. That kind of development might

797
continue and might even be extended. It would be an extraordinary situation if there were one set of rules and laws applying on one Saturday on one ground and on the following Saturday, when a different game was being played, the rules were entirely different. Therefore, one has to look at that point as a matter which has not yet cropped up. In general, if the Government have no intention of extending these powers to other sports, why do they wish to keep the power in the Bill? At least they should be willing to keep the power only subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I believe that these two amendments are rather unwise. It is the view of a number of people that the real troublemakers at football matches are stone-cold sober. They get their pleasure by causing the trouble, and the trouble is then exacerbated by others, who have had too much to drink, joining in. If this law is effective and cuts down trouble at football matches, those who get their pleasure by causing trouble will go to other sports and other events. Therefore, it is essential that the Government have the ability to bring in this power in relation to other sports fairly quickly, without delay and without having to come back to Parliament.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, what the noble Lord has just said is quite true, but we must not forget that we already have the criminal law. Disturbances of one kind or another of various degrees of seriousness are happening every day at all sorts of sporting events and other places where people forgather. There will not be a sudden change to football hooliganism overnight in some other sport. If there is, the Home Secretary will be too late, anyway, with his order. We hope it will not happen, but one can foresee the possibility that there will be a gradual build-up of greater violence and hooliganism in other sports grounds, and while Parliament's attention is being directed to this matter and Parliament is being invited to agree to an extension of this Bill to other sports, the existing criminal law is perfectly capable of coping with the situation. Good gracious!, we have been coping with riots of all kinds under the criminal law for hundreds of years, before this Bill was ever thought of. There is no need for this panic idea of extending it to other sports now.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, many of the concerns which have been expressed this afternoon were deployed last week, at Committee stage. My right honourable friend fully understands the concern expressed. He has carefully considered all the arguments which have been put to us.
There are two Acts on the statute book which might be regarded as precedents on the point which underlies this amendment: the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. Both operate through designation by the Secretary of State. In both cases the order is subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Scottish Act was not expedited through Parliament as an emergency measure, as is this Bill. There was ample time then for its provisions to be considered in detail, and they were considered in detail.
798
I thought that it might be useful to read the Official Report of the debates on that Act to see what arguments had been raised on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. What I found was that the point had not been debated at all. The only reference to it in the debates in another place was by a Scottish Labour Member. He was concerned that the negative resolution procedure might be too slow if an emergency arose. It is only sensible to follow these precedents. It also seems desirable that the framework of controls so far as possible should be the same north and south of the Border. There is no logic whatsoever in their being different.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the licensing laws ought to be the same north and south of the Border?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that takes me back to the day before yesterday and it is a subject upon which I do not propose to embark now. As I have said and as your Lordships will be aware, our Scottish colleagues have made only one very limited extension beyond soccer, in that Murrayfield is designated when rugby internationals are played there.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised the point about football grounds. He referred to two football grounds which are used for rugby matches. The situation is that we intend to designate soccer grounds for soccer matches. Other sports on Football League grounds will not be caught; for example, Rugby League at Carlisle and boxing at Queen's Park Rangers' ground are the two instances which I have.
However, next season Bradford Football Club will be using the Rugby League ground at Bradford and we intend to designate the Rugby League ground but only for soccer matches. Perhaps I should add to clarify the matter that because events designated under the Scottish Act are treated in the same way as the kind of matters that I have just described and are designated under the Bill in Clause 9(3)(b), travel in England and Wales en route to a rugby international at Murrayfield will be subject to the controls in Clause 1.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord brought in the question of rugby. There was a unique case some years ago where there was a plane crash. I think it was going from South Wales to Murrayfield to a rugby match. All the people in the plane were killed. The investigation showed afterwards that some had thought that it was an open cockpit-type plane where there was access to the pilot by the passengers. The theory was that somebody had thrown a beer bottle in the plane. So you have got to be careful when you are talking about other sports and thinking that they are totally free from violence. Some of them are not. There were quite a lot of people killed in that crash.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if anything, that point strengthens the argument which I advocate. So far as aeroplanes are concerned, there is a perfectly sound precedent and measure which is internationally respected that the captains of aircraft have the right to prevent drink or drunken passengers coming on to the aircraft. As I said the other day, it is a power which I have exercised in a professional capacity myself.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to Bradford and to the fact that if Rugby League games were played liquor would be available but would not be available for soccer matches. But coming from there myself, I believe that same set of spectators will watch both matches. They are not that different.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if the noble Lord studies the remarks that I made to deal with the particular problem about Bradford, which is rather unusual—and the circumstances will be known to the noble Lord—his concern will be met.
My right honourable friend has made it quite plain that he intends in the initial designation order to designate only soccer and that he has no plans to designate any other sport. It is not so much a question of no intention to designate other sports, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, addressed it. The point is that we are talking about circumstances that might arise and it is a question of no intention without due cause. No one would consider making these designations unless due cause appeared for them to be designated.
Application of the Bill's provisions to any other sport would be a step which the Government would not lightly take. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mocked me to some extent about remarks that were made during the Committee stage. If anyone is giving weight to the Ascot argument, it is the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and not me. It would be quite fantastic to imagine this Government or any other responsible Government suddenly starting to designate different sports left, right and centre—cricket, Ascot, Henley, or anything else.
He referred to my suggesting that it was prudent to think of the unthinkable; but I really have to say to your Lordships that a few years ago the majority of people in this country would have found it quite unthinkable that the sort of scenes that we have seen on television at football matches up and down the country would ever occur in a month of Sundays, but suddenly they are with us. The noble Lord really cannot suggest that it is right to ignore the future. It has been argued that it is quite inconceivable that a need for controls should ever arise in such events. That may be right. I sincerely hope, as we all do, that that is the case.
As was said just now by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, when he referred to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, other sports are not immune from disorder. We have already seen a few regrettable instances in this country and there have been other and more serious problems abroad. We cannot afford to be complacent, although I would be the first to say that at present we have no problem in relation to other sports on the scale of soccer hooliganism.
But, let us suppose the worst: that there was a sudden and serious outbreak of disorder which required immediate action. Are we to say that the Home Secretary should be obliged to stand helplessly by unable to do anything until the affirmative procedure had run its course? That could take weeks or even months if Parliament were in Recess. I cannot
800
believe that that is in any sense what any of us would want.
During the Committee proceedings some noble Lords were concerned that the negative procedure might not afford an opportunity for Parliament to debate the order if it were laid during the Recess. Perhaps I may clarify that. Under the negative procedure, an order may be prayed against within 40 days of its laying. The 40 days do not include any period during which neither House is sitting. If, for example, an order were laid on 1st August and both Houses were in Recess, the 40 days would not start to run until at least one House assembled.
I sincerely hope that it will never be necessary to extend the Bill's provisions beyond soccer. I think that, to some extent, if it had to be extended beyond soccer, then that would be some indication of a very serious failure on the part of all of us in this country and would go far wider than this particular measure and embrace all the other measures taken to stamp out this deplorable behaviour. If, sadly, it did become necessary, the Government would naturally wish to give as much notice of their intentions as possible so that discussion could take place. To insist on the affirmative procedure would be to tie the hands of any Home Secretary; and I believe that it goes too far. The assurances which I and my right honourable and honourable friends have given should allay the concern of your Lordships, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he agree that all history shows that it is nearly always advisable for the English to follow the Scots? When they do not the result is nearly always fatal.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as another Scotsman, perhaps I may merely say to the noble Lord that I am sure that in that he is almost certainly correct.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I asked one specific question to which, unhappily, I have not had an answer. It was this. What other sports were consulted?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I meant to refer to that. I can tell him honestly that no bodies have been consulted other than football.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, that is exactly the answer that I believe was going to be given. In other words, the Government have come forward with legislation and have asked Parliament to confer these remarkable powers, and they have not discussed them nor even notified the other sports, which are only now beginning to discover that this piece of legislation could be extended to them and that, if it were, it would have the most swingeing economic effects, to which I have referred already today, on many of the mass spectator sports in this country. What is the argument for the negative resolution procedure put forward by the noble Lord the Parliamentary Under-Secretary? First, there is the Safety of Sports Grounds Act which,

801
when it was initially brought in, applied to the First and Second Divisions and now it is to be extended to the Third and Fourth Divisions.
We then come to this piece of Scottish legislation. If the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will forgive my saying so—and if I may use what is an appropriate sporting metaphor—he took the Minister's stumps right out of the ground by asking why, if it was so necessary to follow the Scots in every way, we had such a remarkably different approach so far as licensing legislation was concerned. That is precisely the point. In fact, there is nothing in the Scottish point at all. There are major distinctions, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will be aware. Many aspects of the criminal law are wholly different as between the law of Scotland and that of England, in any event.
If I may give another good example, there is the rather unfortunate new parole policy which has been introduced by the Home Secretary in England and Wales. But the Scottish Secretary has made it absolutely clear that he has not the faintest intention of following in Scotland what he obviously regards as a very undesirable example. That is another example where in fact the position is wholly different between England and Wales, and Scotland. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, so far as what was said in the House of Commons is concerned, is obvious. English Members by and large—it may be reprehensible—do not study Scottish legislation with apparently the degree of enthusiasm and keenness which the noble Lord has been applying in the past few days. Maybe that is very objectionable, but it is unhappily the position.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if the noble Lord had had the advantage of being in another place, he would find that they were discouraged from doing any such thing.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Precisely, my Lords. And what I have been saying to the House this afternoon is that it is not good enough for the Minister to say, "There is this piece of Scottish legislation. We must automatically follow the Scottish example".
Lord Boothby: My Lords, does the noble Lord not realise that the Scottish legal system, based on Roman law, is acknowledged all over the world as being infinitely superior to the English system; and by the Law Lords themselves?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am certainly wise enough not to follow the noble Lord on that particular point. I am quite sure that he would have the advantage of me in any debate on that question. Whatever may be the admirable features of the Scottish legal system, I am saying that the idea that we have to follow the Scottish example, as far as this particular piece of legislation is concerned, is, I should have thought, one of the less impressive arguments which have been put to the House.
I come now to the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. It is the "Recess" argument: that something happens in the months of August or September; that the Minister wants to act
802
immediately; and that he would be able to do it more speedily by the negative resolution procedure than by the affirmative one. I think that is a fairly substantial overstatement of the case, and I shall say why. It is an overstatement of the case because I do not believe that a single incident at another sport will trigger off these procedures. I think that the only way in which another sport is likely to be added to the schedule is if there is a whole series of escalating events over a period of months and, eventually, the Government feel that it is desirable to move in that direction. The idea that they do it on the basis of one event is, I think, fanciful.
One comes back to the point raised at the beginning of this debate. This Bill is essentially a Bill about football; it is a Bill about Brussels; it is a Bill about disturbances at football matches in England and Wales. That is what we are confronted with. The Government are asking that they should have the power to extend it to other sports, but admit that they have not even discussed the implications of that decision with one of the sports concerned, which seems to me wholly reprehensible if the Government are asking for powers of this sort. Only now are these sports beginning to wake up to the prospect that they could, in fact, be brought into the coverage of this Bill by an order made by a future Home Secretary. I think that it was wrong for us to contemplate giving Ministers not only the power to extend the provisions of the Bill but also the opportunity to do it without securing the approval of Parliament in advance by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. That is why my noble friends and I have every intention of dividing the House.
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 78.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Banks, L.

McNair, L.

Barnett, L.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mulley, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rochester, L.

Diamond, L.

Seear, B.

Donoughue, L.

Simon, V.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Stamp, L.

Greenway, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thurso, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Tryon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Inglewood, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beloff, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Belstead, L.

Caithness, E. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Boothby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

803

Cathcart, E.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cox, B.

Margadale, L.

Craigton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dundee, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Faithfull, B.

Munster, E.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Newall, L.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Gisborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glanusk, L.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Radnor, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rodney, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Stockton, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hooper, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Teviot, L.

Kitchener, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lansdowne, M.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

White, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Resolved in the negative to accordingly.
7.4 p.m.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Short title and extent]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 9, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) This Act shall continue in force for the period of five years beginning with the date of the commencement of this Act and shall then expire unless Parliament by affirmative resolution of each House determines that it shall continue in force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to spend too much time on this amendment, because the Government have given me the substance of it by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, earlier: namely, that in any future public order Bill the Long Title will be drawn in such a form as to make this Bill amendable. I think that this is an important consideration and therefore I do not intend to pursue the amendment.
I have to say—and I make this admission at once—that some of my more witty friends were rather in favour of dividing the House on this question, in order to give the Labour Party the opportunity of abstaining on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; because this is his own amendment at the last stage of the Bill and he did not proceed with it on that occasion. However, such is our charity on these Benches that we would not dream of doing any such thing, and therefore—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am always glad to be interrupted by the noble Lord and I will
804
gladly give way in a moment. But if I may repeat the point, I am grateful for the fact that the noble Lord was able to meet us on this point. Obviously it does not wholly satisfy us. Quite blunty, we should have preferred the five-year amendment. Nevertheless, it is a move in the right direction. It gives Parliament the opportunity of considering this matter again and I think that that is very desirable.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I only wanted to tell the noble Lord and the House that the noble Lord looks extremely attractive in his own clothes. He looks positively dazzling when he wears mine. I would say also that I was myself satisfied by the answer of the noble Lord the Minister, in the same way that my noble friend Lord Harris was.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am afraid that I could not quite hear what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, and I do not know whether or not he intends to press this Amendment. I hope that he will. I suspect that he may have indicated otherwise, but I should like to say why I think that he should persist. I suppose that this is the most important amendment we are considering this evening. We would normally spend between 20 and 25 hours in total on a Bill of this length, significance and complexity—a Bill which affects the rights of the individual. Those 20 to 25 hours would be spread over a period of five days, with plenty of time between the various stages for reflection.
As a matter of interest to your Lordships, you may like to know that we spent over 18½ hours considering the Water (Fluoridation) Bill, which has less than half the number of clauses that this Bill has and is far less complex. We have been asked, and we have reluctantly agreed, to rush this Bill through in less than half the time normally allowed, in less than half the normal number of days, with only one short interval of six days for reflection.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—who I am sorry is not in his place at this moment—pointed out on 12th July, speaking to quite a different Bill from this one, at col. 446 of the Official Report:
"Rushed legislation is nearly always bad legislation. In a democracy, time for consideration is desirable".
He went on to point out that on other matters the Government did not think that three years was too long to spend on dealing with, and pondering upon, a complex issue. It seems to me that this amendment provides an important and indeed a vital safeguard, and I believe that if the Government were to resist it they would be behaving quite unreasonably. I trust that they will not resist it.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are those who would have us attach a limited life to this Bill at the outset. That I fully understand. Various reasons have been adduced why we should do so: that the Bill is experimental; that it confers undesirable, wide-ranging powers on the Secretary of State; that it places restrictions on football clubs and spectators, the need for which ought to be kept under review; and that the Bill has had to complete its parliamentary passage with unusual speed. That was the thrust of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, just now.

805
As the noble Lord himself seemed to say, those arguments are not peculiar to this Bill. Indeed, I have heard them deployed at one time or another on various measures which have been before your Lordships' House. But it is not usually suggested, as it seems to be now, that because a Bill has what some consider an experimental flavour or because it restricts what people can do, it should necessarily be a temporary measure.
Temporary legislation is quite rightly in my view reserved for very special cases—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, mentioned at an earlier stage the Prevention of Terrorism Bill which he piloted through your Lordships' House in 1974. Granted the present Bill has been brought forward in an emergency or because of emergency conditions, but there I think the comparison with the Prevention of Terrorism Bill ends. In that case there were the most fundamental implications for individual liberties. People could be detained by the police or excluded from the country. I do not think it can be seriously argued that the consequences of the present Bill are in any sense comparable to that piece of legislation.
It has been made amply clear from all sides of your Lordships' House that everybody regrets the necessity of this Bill. We should all be delighted if a time came when we could manage without it. Naturally, we all hope that its impact on crowd behaviour at football matches will be swift and effective. But what we want to achieve is a lasting change. It takes time to establish new attitudes. It has indeed taken time for the kind of conditions which we now see to come to the state that we now find. People must come to accept that drink at football matches may be had only in certain circumstances and on certain conditions. Troublemakers must come to accept that their activities will not be tolerated. Our Scottish colleagues have found that their Act has contributed to a whole new atmosphere at football grounds. This could not have been more clearly expressed than it was by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, last week. This is what we want too, but we cannot achieve it overnight.
To argue the Bill should be a temporary measure seems to me to give entirely the wrong impression. The Government are committed to a continuing programme of firm action to stamp out hooliganism at football matches. I believe that we have the general support of all parties for that. We do not want the hooligans to think that our determination to deal with them is no more than a passing phase. We must make it clear that it is a lasting commitment which must not be put into question at any time. As your Lordships know, there will be other opportunities to debate these matters, especially during the proceedings on the proposed new public order legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred. We have already undertaken to give further consideration to a number of matters in the Bill during that legislation including the question of private boxes.
I very much hope that it will be possible by then to report some improvement in the standards of behaviour at football matches; but I would certainly not favour imposing limitations on the life of the Bill at the outset. That was not considered right for the
806
Scottish Act and I do not see that the present Bill should be treated any differently.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I started off speaking very briefly, and the House will be gratified to learn that I propose to reply very briefly, too. As I indicated, I do not propose to press this amendment. The Minister met us to some extent on the Long Title of the Public Order Bill. We will be able to go through these matters again and, speaking from these Benches, we shall do so. I shall explain very briefly why.
We shall do so because Parliament has failed to do its duty in respect of this Bill. The fact that a number of Conservative Members of Parliament, led by Mr. Douglas Hogg, complained in the strongest terms about the way in which this Bill had been railroaded through the House of Commons in a single day; the fact that we have had only two days to discuss a Bill which creates a whole series of new criminal offences in this country; and the fact that we are apparently prepared to allow the Government to extend its provisions by means of the negative procedure—all this means that, in my judgment and that of many others outside the House as well as within it, Parliament has not discharged its responsibilities particularly well. We know why—because there has been a deal between the two Front Benches in the House of Commons. That is why we have had this rather unreal Committee stage and Report stage in this House. Nevertheless I do not propose to go into detail on those questions save to say that we shall go into this matter very carefully when we get the Public Order Bill in the House as will my right honourable and honourable friends in another place.
In addition to that, we shall of course be anxious to get at that stage the report of the monitoring which the Home Office apparently is going to carry out. I should be grateful for some indication—I am not asking for it tonight—as to whether or not we are going to get that information in a publishable form. For instance, it is quite clear to me that many football clubs will wish to make their representations to the Home Office, assuming that they are going to carry out the monitoring which presumably will be the case. I should have preferred, as the Minister knows, to have had an individual looking at the implications and submitting a report to the Home Secretary. That would have been better. I know that there is no precise analogy—of course there is not—between this Bill and the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. Nevertheless, it was done on two occasions so far as that was concerned. I think that by and large it worked. It worked because Parliament was giving unusual powers to the Executive as it is giving most unusual powers to the Executive in this case.
However, having said that, we do not propose to press this amendment this evening. We shall come back to it when we get the Public Order Bill. We will then expect, and I hope we will get, the results of the monitoring on the progress of the implementation of this new policy in publishable form before we have to debate that Bill in this House. With that, I ask the consent of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 9th July), Bill read a third time.
[Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
When I moved the Second Reading of this Bill, I described it as one of a number of measures being taken by the Government to tackle problems of order and safety at football grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, warned us that it was not a panacea. He was quite right to do so. The Bill tackles but one aspect of the problem—the role played by drinking and drunkenness in what the noble Lord described today as the cancer of disorder and violence among football supporters. I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their support for the principles of the Bill. We have vigorously debated a number of aspects of it, and I am only too aware that the Government have not been able to satisfy all noble Lords on all points. But there has been no serious doubt expressed about the need to deal effectively with the problem of drink at football grounds. I am grateful to noble Lords for their help and their contributions to our discussions.
I made it clear at the outset that the Government attached a high priority to putting the Bill on to the statute book before the start of the next football season. By the time of the first kick-off at Wembley on 10th August all first-class grounds will be dry. The dry period will end when the first exemption orders are issued by the magistrates' courts, probably in September. Neither clubs nor spectators will be in any doubt that we mean business. Football must put its house in order. I have made it clear that the Government regret the need to impose restrictions on the many law-abiding spectators who attend football matches, but if it helps to reduce violence and reduce disorder and make English football once more the respectable and respected game throughout the world that it deserves to be, it will indeed have been a modest price to pay.
We have had useful discussions about many aspects of the Bill. We have all agreed very strongly about the need to control the possession of alcohol and control drunkenness on transport to matches and on entry to the ground. The Bill deals effectively with those who arrive at grounds already "tanked up", as the expressions goes, and we trust that it will have as great an impact here as the 1980 Act has had in Scotland.
There has been less unanimity about how the sale and possession of alcohol inside grounds should be controlled. We have debated that matter at length and I do not feel that I should go into that point further now. We shall monitor the effects on club's revenue in the way that I described earlier. I have made it clear that the Government will consider the forthcoming public order legislation as a suitable vehicle for any changes that might be considered necessary.
My right honourable friend has made his own intentions perfectly clear, and that should reassure all sporting bodies that, provided they keep their house in order, they can continue to have drink at their grounds under the existing arrangements.
808
In conclusion, I commend the Bill to your Lordships. It will not in itself solve the problem of football violence and football hooliganism but it will make a major contribution. The Chief Constable of Strathclyde has said that the Scottish police forces regard the 1980 Act as a major step towards improving football behaviour in Scotland. We hope and believe that this Bill will be similarly effective in England and Wales.
The reputation of English football reached an all-time low with the Brussels disaster. Perhaps we have now turned the corner. Certainly FIFA was sufficiently persuaded of our determination to put our house in order to lift the worldwide ban it had imposed on English teams. It is now up to us to ensure that that trust is justified. The Bill is one important step in that direction. I am glad to see that other European countries also are taking steps to control alcohol at football matches.
However, that is not the end of the matter. During earlier proceedings on the Bill I outlined the other measures which the Government are taking to improve the standards of order and safety at football grounds. They will all make a most important contribution. We look to the football authorities and the clubs to discharge their responsibilities with equal energy and determination. That is what law-abiding soccer supporters want. That is what will bring them back to the grounds. That is precisely what we all want to see.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not believe that this is the occasion for long speeches on a Bill which we have discussed at its various stages, even if there has been limited time. There are only a few observations I want to make, apart from congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who has not had an easy task as the Minister in charge of this Bill, in taking it through its various stages in a very short space of time. He deserves to be congratulated for the way in which he has done that.
That does not mean that we invite many repetitions of legislation rushed through Parliament. It is not difficult for anybody in any part of your Lordships' House to make a protesting speech in that context. I join in the wish that we shall have very few examples of rushing legislation through Parliament. However, I am not ashamed in the very slightest degree at being a member of a party that decided to enter into an agreement with the Government, with responsiblity to the nation at large, to see to it that something was done by way of legislation before the next football season starts.
I do not carry any shame to any other Benches for having entered into that agreement, and I do not know that special glory descends upon those Benches which try to criticise others for entering into a responsible agreement of that kind.
My first observation is that we have concentrated so much on the question of what happens in the football grounds that I tend to think we may have forgotten what we have done in Clause 1 of this Bill, which is to hit at a very great evil, as we have seen it by experience:

809
that is, what happens in conveyances to football grounds before the start of the match and from football grounds after the end of the match. I am talking, obviously, about public service vehicles and about our railways.
I mention that provision specifically because I want to bring one small point to the attention of the Minister. I know that he was keen on behalf of the Government in seeing that there was not unfairness in Clause 1 so far as concerns railway employees. I notice that in Clause 1 there is an offence if,
"A person who knowingly causes or permits intoxicating liquor to be carried on a vehicle to which this section applies … if the vehicle is a hired vehicle"—
and one knows that trains are very often hired to supporters' associations and clubs—
"and he is the person to whom it is hired or the servant or agent of that person".
I wonder whether the guards on a railway train so hired might in fact be servants or agents of the people who have made the hiring, and whether, in spite of what the Government were intending in the Bill, railway guards would be caught by that provision. No doubt the noble Lord the Minister, in his kindness, will deal with that point. If he cannot deal with it now, I am sure he will deal with it hereafter.
I conclude by saying in repetition what the noble Lord the Minister kindly quoted me as saying before. It was no original thought of mine that this Bill is no panacea. However, I believe we have a duty to expedite legislation of this kind. I believe we have carried out our duty to the best of our ability. I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister—as was expressed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—for having agreed on behalf of the Government to see that the Bill's effect on the revenue of clubs is monitored.
I am sure the Minister will not mind my suggesting too that there should be regular consultation with the Football Association to see how all this is working out, and to see whether, when the public order legislation to which reference has been made comes before us, we will be able to make revisions to this legislation that will make it less odorous upon a sport that has so long been associated with this country, but associated with honour and not dishonour.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I have no doubt that this Bill will play an appreciable part in reducing the amount of hooliganism both inside and outside football grounds. To that extent the Bill is undoubtedly to be welcomed, and to that extent we on these Benches of course support it.
At the same time, when looking back at this Bill, I cannot but feel still that it is a clumsy measure. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said earlier, it is a measure that is much too wide in places and much too narrow in other places. It could have been more effective, and there could have been more safeguards properly written into it.
I am bound to say that I cannot regard this Bill as one of the more elegant additions to the criminal law. The reasons are self-evident, and reference has been made to them several times this evening. There is the haste with which the Bill has been pushed through
810
both Houses of Parliament. After all, the incidents in Brussels took place in May. There was really no reason why it should be not before July that a Bill came before another place. The Bill could not have taken very long to draft; that is self-evident from the way it is drafted. I should have thought it quite unnecessary that the haste should have been as great as it was. It has meant that the Bill is not as good as it might have been.
7.30 p.m.
Secondly, there has been an unhappy absence of consultation between the Government and the bodies involved; and that became clear this afternoon in relation to other sports apart from association football. That has had the result—these two factors of haste and lack of consultation—that those of us who wanted to take part in this Bill have been deprived of a certain amount of information that we might reasonably have expected to receive from interested bodies who knew they were being affected by a Bill going through the House. I would not have wanted on this Bill the volume of paper that arrived every morning while the Bill to abolish the GLC was going through your Lordships' House, but a little more factual information from some of the organisations concerned on how they would be affected would have enabled us to assist the House more in its deliberations.
Thirdly, the proceedings on this Bill—it is quite incontestable—have been bedevilled by an agreement between the Conservative and Labour Front Benches in another place on the detailed provisions of the Bill. That they should have agreed to hasten the passage of the Bill, that they should have agreed that it should go through the other place in one day, if that is what they wanted, is all very well, but the unhappy result of that agreement has been—and it is unhappy for all in your Lordships' House—that the House has been deprived of the benefit of free and unfettered judgment, particularly from Members of the Labour Front Bench, in debating this matter in this House. We had the very unhappy situation in which the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, having tabled an amendment (obviously because he believed it was right and would improve the Bill; otherwise, he would not have tabled it) had to inquire across the Floor of the House of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, as to whether it was within the terms of the agreement if the amendment was moved. On being told that it was not, he then had to say that, in that case, he could not move it. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I venture to suggest that in the interests of good legislation, because of our role as a revising Chamber, if the parties in the other place want to enter into such agreements they should leave your Lordships free to act as individuals and to exercise our proper judgment to the benefit of revising the legislation in the best way that we can.
The only other comment I want to make is to echo the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for the way in which he conducted his part in this Bill, and for the rapidity with which he arranged for consultations to take place with him, the Minister and some of us involved in these matters. I am also grateful for his invariable courtesy in dealing with the points we made. I suspect that had it not been for the fact of this previously agreed position he might have

811
been even more flexible in his responses than he was to some of the arguments put to him; but I am grateful for the flexibility he was able to show.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hope I can keep my few remarks within one minute. Even if critical of this rush job, nevertheless I pay tribute because I am sure that a great deal of good will flow from our deliberations. We were discussing much the same points six years ago in this Chamber, and although that seems to have been a long time ago no doubt water dripping on stone is one of the ways in which government works.
There is much work here for the police. Often, very large amounts of work are laid on their shoulders following our deliberations, and we should all think a little more about the demands made on their available strength, particularly at week-ends. A heavy burden is often placed on the families, particularly of members of the British Transport Police, who are escorting the fans and the teams right through the weekends. We must remember that, and we must see that their lives are not made impossible.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, it would be difficult to vote against this Bill; but I suggest, it is equally difficult to vote for it with enthusiasm. I take this opportunity, as I was not able to take part in the earlier stages of the Bill, to echo what has been said by others: that this smacks more of instant public relations than a deep study of the social issues involved.
The noble Lord the Minister said that the Bill is part of a number of measures that have been taken. I wonder whether at this stage he can tell me whether the following measures have been included, and, if he is unable to give me an informed answer, perhaps he will write to me. First, to complement this little Bill, and as part of a wider strategy, has any attempt been made to encourage throughout our schools a campaign against this antisocial behaviour and to encourage contempt for violence at sporting events? Secondly, has there been any agreement with the football authorities to insist on better behaviour by the players on the field? It is the ridiculous and excessive display of feeling when a goal has been scored—or, for that matter, more and more nowadays when a wicket has been taken—that can stoke up an indisciplined attitude on the part of spectators which finds expression, in extreme cases, in this mob violence.
Invariably it is this behaviour which is siezed upon by the television and press photographers, and it helps to get over to young people that this is normal behaviour. Can the noble Lord tell me whether this point has been discussed with the football authorities, what conclusions have been arrived at, and what action has been taken?
Thirdly, what notice has been taken by the Government of the appeals made from members of all parties for some extra diversion of funds from the money collected by the pools levy? I can well see that a reduction in the percentage now could mean, over the years, an increase in the Treasury revenue, because unless something more is done by way of investment in facilities at the grounds there could be a steady decline in attendances, and in interest in everything associated with football, which would mean a reduction in the pools and the amount of money
812
which the Government collect from them. I hope that the noble Lord can say that this is a matter which is under consideration, and will be able to say something about it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in wishing the Bill well when it becomes an Act. I, too, agree with the view expressed that it will do a lot to help football clean up its image. I say that as someone who has watched football for most of his life and who has never partaken of much drink in that process.
I find it difficult to support my noble friend on the Front Bench in congratulating the Minister on the speed with which he has put through this Bill. The deal having been done in another place, there was very little work for the Minister to do here. He had only to go through the motions. We have had two days of debate, but have been given very little on some of the major points. Some of the major points in contest still divide us greatly. I take the view, as other noble Lords have, that the less we see of this type of legislation coming through in this way the better it will be for us and for the country as a whole.
The Minister said that it had been brought forward because there was an emergency. What does he mean by "emergency"? I also agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that it has been done more as a public relations exercise for the benefit of football communities outside this country than actually dealing with the problem in the fullest and fairest sense. What happened in Brussels was totally regrettable and absolutely unforgivable.
I do not intend to detain your Lordships much longer, but I have taken the trouble to obtain a copy of the Belgian parliamentary report on what happened at the Heysal Stadium in Brussels. It nearly brought down the Belgian Government. If we take some of the arguments to a logical conclusion, are we to say that if the Belgian Government had fallen it was because of Liverpool Football Club? The club seems to have been blamed for everything in sight, and in some respects it was totally innocent. We have a whole host of clubs in this country who play every year all over the world and have never had one iota of trouble. There were around 150 games last year and there was trouble at one game. But all the clubs are banned without trial.
I should like to read a brief paragraph from the Belgian parliamentary report. It says:
"Summary of the Report of the Belgian Commission of Enquiry into the Heysal disaster. It should be underlined that British supporters made the first fatal charge in Block Z and must take prime responsibility for the Heysal disaster. But there is no doubt that the organisers—UEFA and the Belgian FA—knew of the problems of British fans. Liverpool [Football Club] made arrangements for their supporters to be accompanied by 10 policemen and 34 stewards. Liverpool's supporters are among the best behaved in Britain. British transport authorities confirmed this".
The report goes on to say that the Belgian FA and UEFA were responsible for the security of the spectators but that they seemed more preoccupied with selling tickets to whoever wanted them. I think it is about time that people stood up to be counted to affirm that it was not all one way, and that there were grave disorders that took place there, which, even without this legislation that we are putting through

813
today, could not and would not happen in this country.
I began by saying that I supported the Bill. I hope the Minister will take most seriously the points that have been made regarding the loss of finance to the clubs if this Bill remains as it is and is enacted. I was a little disappointed that the noble Lord did not reply to the major point I made when I quoted statements from 16 of the 32 clubs that will be grievously affected by what we are doing today. Since I left this Chamber and went back to my desk, there is another club, Blackburn Rovers, which is supported by my noble friend, so there are 17 out of 32 clubs which are predicting that it will seriously affect their eonomic viability.
I close by saying that I hope that I am wrong and they are wrong, but I have an idea at the back of my mind that they will be right; and I hope that if that picture does emerge quickly, the Minister can persuade his colleagues in another place to act as expeditiously as possible.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I intend to take less than two minutes in speaking. First of all, I wish the Bill well. Secondly, I should like to acknowledge the manner in which my noble friend and colleague Lord Mishcon has made as plain as he possibly can his unease at the rushed legislation and at some of the premises upon which the legislation has been allowed to go forward.
Earlier this week I had the opportunity with other noble Lords to discuss with the Minister and his right honourable friend in another place some of the ways in which we envisage the outcome being detrimental to the financial viability of certain clubs. Let me say at once to the Minister, while looking him straight in the eye—it is not a frightening prospect for either of us, I can assure your Lordships—that I want him to understand that I appreciate his difficulties under the tight timescale in which the Government have had to act.
The Bill has been given a clean passage through this House, not against assurances (with a capital A) and not against written guarantees, but against a sympathetic understanding by the noble Lord and his colleague. That is, that if the fears which I have sought to bring to your Lordships' attention from clubs such as Tottenham Hotspur, in the light of a monitoring exercise which will happen sooner rather than later, turn out to be well-founded, he will use the device, the peg or the technique of the Bill which will be promoted in the next Session, so that an amendment which will take account of those sad situations can be very carefully considered.
There can be no promises. We understand that, but we have the promise of consultation, monitoring and sympathetic and speedy action if events prove to be as foreseen. The Minister has had a difficult job, and we understand that. For my part, I accept completely his assurances that these matters will be looked at sympathetically. I am very grateful indeed not merely for the collaboration of the Labour Front Bench but also for the interest that has been shown from all round the House. No one sector of the House is entitled to claim that it has been either more militant or more solicitous than any other. We are very conscious of the
814
terrible disaster that lies behind us and we are looking forward to a better football season and further seasons year after year. I wish the Bill well.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if I may respond without making another lengthy speech on this matter, I should first of all like to thank all those noble Lords who have spoken for their kind remarks to me about the Bill. I cannot really agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that there was very little work for me to do, but that is my judgement against his. I certainly found it a fairly busy week.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked particularly about British Rail guards. Perhaps I may give him the assurance which I think he seeks. The answer to his query is that the guards would not be caught in the way he imagines. The hirer of a football special train is normally a football club or a supporters' club. Their servants or agents would include, for example, the stewards, whom I understand they provide to supervise the passengers on the train. The guard would not be the agent of the club because the club does not have authority to give him instructions and he does not act on behalf of the club, and clearly he is not the employee of the club because he is the employee of British Rail. I hope that that answer clarifies the point for the noble Lord.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for his general welcome for the Bill. I think we must look forward now, and not back. He has rehearsed the arguments about agreements and other things several times in the past.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood rightly expresses a concern for the police, particularly the British Transport Police, who might be given more than their fair share of work to do if that sort of behaviour and our need to police it were to continue. I think that goes much wider than the legislation about which we are concerned, but I note his remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked me three specific questions. First, he asked whether or not we would do anything to encourage schools and others, but particularly people in schools, to consider some way of preparing people for anti-social behaviour and to speak against it. As I understand it, no particular measures have been taken, but I certainly think that the noble Lord makes a good point. I think it goes a lot wider than just football hooliganism. It seems to me that it is more a matter of upbringing, and the sooner we get it across, not just in schools but to parents and into the whole foundation of society, the better. It is a difficult subject but I think that the noble Lord is quite right.
As regards talking to the Football Association about agreements on the behaviour of players, I have some personal sympathy with the views that he expresses. I understand that the Football Association has said that it will try to encourage less exuberance. That is the only encouragement I think I can offer the noble Lord.
The pools betting duty is a point which I covered at Second Reading. I know that the noble Lord was not there. I said then that the pools betting duty was a tax on gambling, not on football. The Pools Promoters' Association pays about £5 million a year for the use of the league fixtures and VAT is charged on entrance

815
fees to all places of entertainment, including cinemas and theatres. I do not think that I can necessarily develop that argument any further tonight at this stage of the Bill. If the noble Lord will read Hansard—
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I have read it. Is the amount that the Football Association gets 5 per cent., or can it be 6 per cent. or 7 per cent?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, all I can do at this stage is to note the remarks of the noble Lord, because this is really a matter of a tax on gambling and not on football, as I have said. These matters do not fall only within the ambit of the Home Office, as the noble Lord will be aware.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, wished the Bill well. I end merely by wishing it well. It has been a hectic week for all concerned. I believe that the Bill will form a sensible part of all the provisions that we take. I sincerely
hope that it will.
On Question, Bill passed.

Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1985
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1985 laid before your Lordships' House on 26th June be approved.
The first part of these regulations is concerned with the financial limits rather than the time limits for board and lodging and increases the flexibility of transitional protection arrangements set out in the original regulations. Those arrangements provided for 13 weeks' transitional protection of the charge being met immediately prior to 29th April 1985 for those aged 16 to 25 who came within the categories exempt from the time limits. Under these amending regulations the 13 weeks can be extended at the Secretary of State's discretion for particular cases or classes of case.
The second part of the regulations extends the categories of cases which are exempt from the time limits on boarder status to cover those young people who are living with their parents or step-parents in board and lodging accommodation. It was never the intention to exlude this category from protection. Unfortunately, the original regulations did not cover this point. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, (who I fear is not here today) among others, for drawing particular attention to this point.
We are aware, for example, that the lack of this exemption has been causing anxiety in the refugee community where many young refugees live with their parents in board and lodging accommodation. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this further exemption and will be pleased to know that arrangements have been made for ex-gratia payments until the regulations come into operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has, I know, been particularly concerned about the position of refugees. He will, I hope, by now have received a letter from me
816
with a copy of a letter sent this week to the Director of the British Refugee Council by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Social Security. The reason that I wrote to the noble Lord was that he wrote to me. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for not sending him copies of the letters to which I have just referred. I assure him that no offence was intended and I hope that none was taken.
To continue, we were aware of difficulties being caused for refugees in one establishment in Clapham. I understand that the local office has been in contact both with the local authority and with the British Refugee Council and the position of these young Vietnamese refugees is now secured.
The British Refugee Council and several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, have pointed to the potential problem of some refugees and asylum seekers identifying themselves as exempt under the existing exemption categories. They have suggested an extension of the exemption categories specifically to cover all refugees and asylum seekers and we are considering this both urgently and sympathetically.
The regulations also provide for greater flexibility in the area of exemption cagetories. As my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security said in another place on 2nd July when these regulations were discussed, we believe that our original list of exemptions generally covers those vulnerable young people who have a real and genuine need to be in board and lodging accommodation for more than a short time. Nevertheless, we want to be able to move quickly to cover other categories should it prove necessary. The regulations therefore enable the Government to extend the scope of the exemptions if it is clearly shown that there are others to whom the time limits should not apply.
I should advise noble Lords that these regulations are being made under the urgency provisions so that their wholly beneficial effect can be introduced as soon as possible. They were not, therefore, referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee before being laid but were submitted immediately after. The committee has indicated that because of the beneficial nature of the regulations it has decided that it does not wish them referred to it for report.
An important purpose in these further regulations is to give additional flexibility to respond as quickly as possible to any other cases where a need for exemption is shown. As has already been announced by my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security in another place, we have already identified two categories where we consider it would be appropriate to use the new power straight away. First, we propose an exemption covering ex-foster children living with their former foster parents. Noble Lords will recall that this point was raised in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and we are grateful to him for bringing this matter to our attention.
Secondly, we propose to extend the exemptions to include young people on bail where the operation of the regulations would otherwise conflict with the terms of their bail. An example might be where there was a requirement to remain in the area.

817
I should like to remind the House of the principal reasons for the new board and lodging regulations introduced from 29th April. The changes were necessary to control escalating expenditure and to curb abuses. The figures are well-known but worth repeating. Expenditure on ordinary board and lodging rose from £52 million in 1979 to an estimated £380 million in 1984. The number of ordinary board and lodging cases rose from 49,000 to an estimated 139,000 over the same period. There was also widespread criticism that young people were too easily able to settle in such accommodation at the public expense at levels of charges above what could be afforded if they were in work.
No responsible Government could have allowed the escalating cost to continue. But in seeking to check the growth we are determined to get the balance right and safeguard those who need protection. I hope that noble Lords will welcome these regulations before the House today which are beneficial and indicate the Government's willingness to make changes where the need is shown. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved. [27th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she has introduced the changes. On these Benches—the Benches on either side are not full at the moment…—we totally oppose any abuse of the system; but I must remind your Lordships that we still do not think that the Government are dealing with abuses in the best possible way. In order to deal with some young people who have taken advantage of the previous situation, the Government have put many other vulnerable young people in great difficulties by the overall rules. I have never been able to understand why those who abuse the situation could not have been caught under previous rules such as those which insist that people must genuinely be seeking work if they are to get benefit. But perhaps tonight is not the time to go into that.
I shall not say to the noble Baroness, "We told you so", but many most concerned and experienced voluntary bodies took the same view as we did, including the Social Security Advisory Committee. I should like to cheer up the noble Baroness. I was the other night reading an old essay of Emerson and I thought of her. It contained this phrase:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little statesmen and philosophers and divines".
I am glad that she is not sticking to a foolish consistency but is accepting that there should be changes.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I interrupt the noble Baroness in this good-humoured moment by quoting once again the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell:
"We who have no knowledge become instant experts".
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. This may be a good-humoured exchange, but I must spoil the atmosphere a little by asking one or two questions. Article 2(2) states:
818
unless in any particular case or class of case the Secretary of State determines that such a period shall be extended".
I am not quite clear how this will work. On what kind of basis will the Secretary of State make such determination? Will there be a long delay while he is thinking about these matters? Will claimants have to write straight to the Secretary of State, if they are turned down by local officers, so that they can ask the Secretary of State direct? What is to be the channel of communication between disgruntled claimants and the Secretary of State? I should be very glad if the Minister could tell us a little more about how this amendment, which we welcome in principle, is to work in practice.
8 p.m.
We understand that there is discretion to extend the 13-week period, which we certainly welcome. However, again we wonder on what criteria this discretion will be exercised and how the individual claimants who want help under this discretion will identify themselves. Will they have to identify themselves, or will they be identified by some higher authority? There have been some cases quoted in another place where young people who would seem to have been exempted under the rules have in fact not realised that they were liable to be exempted or have not been informed that they could he exempted. Cases were quoted of an unstabilised epileptic and of a diabetic who needed daily injections and who certainly should not have been sleeping rough, with his need for clean surroundings for syringes and drugs.
I wonder whether we can have these matters sorted out a little more clearly. I have here a copy of a letter which is sent out to young people in this position. The letter goes to people aged 25 and under. In my view it is not very clearly worded, but it certainly encloses with it a list of exemptions for which young people should apply. This is rather difficult, because it seems to me that it means that the young person has himself to identify his need. One of the exemptions is that he is mentally ill. What is to happen if this young man or woman has been in a mental hospital and has then been sent out, having been told that he or she is cured and is to go back and live in the community? I am not sure that many young people in this position would want to say that they are mentally handicapped, because that has to be a self-indentifying disability. In fact, if they have been told that they are cured and that they must go out and get on with things, they might well need a period of rehabilitation.
Also, the definition of people who are physically disabled, which is also on this list of 11 points, seems to me to be very unclear. I have mentioned cases of epilepsy and diabetes. Does "physically disabled" mean someone who is a registered disabled person, or does it mean simply someone who feels that they are poorly or who can find a doctor to say that they are poorly? I also want to ask the noble Baroness the Minister whether copies of this information are available in any language other than English.
The letter also states to people who want to appeal:
"If you want to appeal you must write to us".
It does not say, as I would wish it could be more friendly and say, "If you want to appeal, come and see

819
us". There are many very vulnerable young people in this situation who may not be very good at writing and who may not even be very good at reading. This missive which they receive goes on to say:
"It will help if your letter says exactly what you are appealing about and why you disagree with the decision".
That is quite a burden for some of the people who will be most concerned in this situation. I am wondering whether the Minister can look again at these communications and see whether they could be put in a more friendly and helpful way. Certainly we need to make it much clearer to the local offices and to the people concerned what are the definitions of "mentally handicapped", "physcially disabled" or "suffering from a mental disorder", which are all criteria in the message that goes out.
I must make it clear that we have many disagreements with the original regulations, but to keep in order we are going to speak only about the young people who are concerned in the amendments. There are many of them who are not exempt but who are genuinely unable to find alternative accommodation. We hope that the Minister will be giving instructions to the local officers to be as generous as they possibly can be.
One of the difficulties of these young people—I do not know why we should go on calling them "young people", because when I was 26 I felt very old, but for the purpose of the debate we must say "young people"—is that if they have to be pushed around from one boarding house to another and allowed to stay only two weeks here, four weeks somewhere else and eight weeks somewhere else, they can never get themselves established on a housing list; they can never get themselves signed on with a local doctor; and they really cannot put down any roots at all. That is part of the problem: that we are creating a great nation of young nomads. I do not think that these amendments deal fundamentally with that. However, I realise that that is not the question before your Lordships tonight.
I want to ask another question about appeals. I understand from a previous occasion that once a young person has made his appeal there is no benefit until the appeal has been heard and adjudged. If I am wrong, I should be very glad to know that. I have to ask the Minister on what young people are supposed to be living if their supplementary benefit is withdrawn because of these rules. There is always some delay before appeals are heard, let alone adjudicated upon. On what are they supposed to live in the interim? This seems to be an invitation to petty crime, to living rough and to all kinds of difficulties for them to have to put up with, which I am sure the Government do not intend.
I welcome what the Minister has said about refugees, because I think this is a good step forward. I had hoped that it would be possible to make refugees one of the listed exemption categories, because at least that, again, is self-identifying. Somebody knows whether or not he is a refugee. Under the rules as they are at present there have been some difficulties in that certain refugees who were not living in approved hostels but who found their own accommodation
820
suddenly found that they did not come under the exemption. At present they come under the category of:
"People who have become boarders as part of a programme of rehabilitation or resettlement under guidance".
Not all refugees think of themselves as "boarders as part of a programme of rehabilitation or resettlement". However, I very much welcome the understanding which the Minister has shown. I am sure that she will see that it is put into action as quickly as possible.
I leave the case as far as we are concerned with those few questions. We shall obviously have to come back to the fundamental arguments about the situation. I am sure that those on this side of the House are looking forward to a situation where we shall not have young people moving around the country looking in desperation for work because they cannot find it near their own homes. We look forward to a situation where there will be more housing for single people and, in many cases of those under 26, people who are living together and who are married but who, until they have children, cannot get on to council lists. Until we get more housing and more jobs, we shall not deal with this whole question. However, regarding the amendments before us, we welcome them so far as they go.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her explanation of the amendment regulations. Seldom has any set of regulations received such a bad reception as was accorded earlier this year to the new regulations dealing with board and lodging. There was, as the noble Baroness will recall, severe criticism of them from all parts of this House.
There were, I believe, two principal fears. The first was that there would be created an itinerant band of young homeless always on the move. Secondly, there was a fear that sick and elderly people might be forced to leave the residential homes where they were living. Regarding elderly people, although for the time being, or perhaps permanently, their costs are to be met at the present level, the present level is not to be indexed; it will cease to be the current level and will therefore cease, in due course, to be sufficient. It is not surprising therefore that the Government already want to amend the regulations. Certainly, we welcome the specific new exemptions: the young people living with parents and step-parents.
We welcome also the Government taking power to extend the list of exemptions. I had it in mind to ask the noble Baroness what the Government propose to do about former foster children. I was glad indeed to learn that they are to be exempted under the new power that the Government are taking. So far as others are concerned, the noble Baroness mentioned young people on bail. I do not think that she mentioned any other groups. I wonder whether she can give any indication of who else at the moment the Government may be preparing to exempt through the use of this new power. We welcome also the flexibility that is being introduced into the transitional arrangements.
So, we welcome the amendments. We welcome them in the same terms as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, did. We welcome them so far as they go. But

821
they do not remove the very grave concern about the whole operation of these regulations. In spite of what the noble Baroness said this evening in introducing the regulations, I would reiterate that there does not seem to be justification for the panic that afflicted the Government over this issue. The percentage increase in the average board and lodging charge in 1984 was the lowest for five years. The increase has been an increase in numbers, not charges.
Undoubtedly, unemployment—the increasing impact of unemployment, the increasing effect of unemployment—is a major factor. So too, I imagine, is the shortage of rented accommodation for single people. In so far as the Government have sought to attack charges, they have done so through the claimants. They have got at the landlords in that way. It seems a rather unfair way of going about it. Many owners of residential homes say that it is just impossible to provide what they do at the new rates. This is causing a good deal of concern and even alarm. As the noble Baroness suggested, important rights are being lost by those people who have to be continually on the move—for example, the right to vote. There are problems over part-time education and part-time work. There is a problem over registration with a doctor, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. There is the problem over the right to be rehoused through the difficulty of building up points. Then there is the fact that all who should be exempt do not realise this and do not apply to be exempted. There is a certain amount of confusion, I believe, about the whole operation. More far-reaching amendments to the regulations than those before us today are called for. But certainly we welcome those so far as they go.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, can I start by assuring the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that I do not feel at all jealous because she writes to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and not to me. Besides, she does sometimes write to me. I would like to start by refreshing her memory and informing your Lordships of a passage in a letter that she wrote to me on 23rd May. She wrote:
"It has never been our intention that young refugees should be affected by the time limit on claiming benefit as a boarder. One of the exemption categories has been drawn up after consultation with the Home Office, among others, specifically with this group in mind".
The pleasure with which those words were read by people who try to help refugees was short lived. It did not work out like that. Young people struggling to start a new life and to grow new roots in an alien land are still, or until a few days ago, were still, being chivvied around from place to place in a manner which everyone must surely recognise to be inappropriate and indeed deplorable. It is in total contradiction of the Government's intention, clearly set out in the letter from which I have quoted. I think—indeed I hope—that it is a case of muddle. There seems to be a terrible failure in communication between different levels of official in the DHSS.
I can perhaps best illustrate this by a case history. It concerns a young Ugandan who has been in this country only a few months. He is on a programme of
822
resettlement under the guidance of the British Refugee Council which placed him in board and lodging accommodation in Wimbledon. His claim to be exempt was not accepted by the local office. When he protested, the local office consulted the oracle in Southampton—the office of the chief adjudicator. This Kafka-like person, or body, turned him down. I have to ask the noble Baroness how this can possibly fit with the assurance that she gave me in the letter—an assurance that I am absolutely certain was given in good faith. That is why I suggest that there has been a breakdown in communication.
What is needed, surely, is that the DHSS should clearly name refugees as an exempt category. This should be done in unambiguous language which not even the most unsympathetic local official, if there should be any such, could possibly misunderstand. The definition must include all those different categories of people to whom we refer collectively as refugees. The noble Baroness will find these categories carefully set out in a letter sent to New Court from the British Refugee Council on 10th July. I note that her honourable friend Mr. Whitney says:
"We shall certainly consider this point sympathetically and urgently".
But this point has been made for several weeks. Can she therefore assure us that "urgently" really does mean urgently?
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I rise to support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, about the refugees. When the original regulations were considered in your Lordships' House on 4th April, I advanced several reasons why refugees should be given special consideration, and the most important of those, and the one on which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has touched, is of course the grave psychological upheaval faced by refugees having to move on every few weeks. I speak with some knowledge of this because I am currently giving asylum to two refugees.
Nevertheless, I warmly welcome the remarks of the noble Baroness, and perhaps I may ask her whether she can give some sort of assurance that the needs of refugees will be fully considered in future legislation of this kind.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate and I shall endeavour to answer as many questions as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked what action is being taken to ensure that the people who need to be exempt from time limits are covered. As I have already indicated, I believe that most vulnerable cases should be covered by the exemption categories.
However, we have reinforced our guidance to local offices by asking them to be particularly alert to the problems that an individual claimant might be experiencing. We have revised the notification letters to claimants so that the claimant or anyone acting on his behalf is asked not only to let the office know immediately if he thinks he falls into one of the exemption categories, but also to let the local office know of any special circumstances which may show a need to be in board and lodging accommodation. This

823
will help us to see whether there are any further exemption categories which need to be covered.
We have also asked local offices to draw up a list of places and agencies in their areas, including the office itself, where claimants will be able to seek help and advice on, for example, finding accommodation or on understanding how the exemption categories may apply to them. Staff are also being reminded to check internal DHSS records for any information which may indicate that a claimant could be covered by the exemption categories.
The noble Baroness asked whether the Government accept that they are affecting vulnerable people by these changes. Once again, my answer is that we have taken action to protect the vulnerable and will extend the list of exemptions if need is shown. We do not believe that the necessary changes in board and lodging payments will lead to increased homelessness or large numbers of people moving around the country.
We believe that most people affected by the changes will be able to make alternative arrangements to claim benefit as householders or non-householders, and that is the picture which seems to be emerging from the initial feedback from our local offices.
With regard to the operation of the extension to the transitional protection, claimants will have to contact their local office setting out the circumstances of the case. Cases will then be referred to the department's headquarters to consider whether the discretion should be exercised on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked what happens to people whose money is reduced even though an appeal is pending. Decisions on benefit entitlements are made by adjudication officers. This includes the decision on down-rating benefit to the non-householder rate after the expiry of the time limits as a boarder. I should point out that benefit will not be withdrawn. There are no provisions for changing an adjudicating officer's decision until new facts are known; for example, that the person comes within an exemption category or until an appeal tribunal overturns that decision. The situation is the same with any appeal against the benefit decision.
As regards the letters about which the noble Baroness spoke, they are in English. The letter has recently been amended and improved to ensure that claimants are more readily able to identify themselves if they are exempt or in special difficulties. I also hope that any voluntary bodies or other persons who come into contact with people who, for instance, have had mental troubles, will help them in their approach to offices, which I recognise as being difficult.
With regard to a specific assurance being given to protect all refugees aged 26 or under, which I believe was raised by various noble Lords, I hear and understand what they have said. The existing provisions were designed to protect those in genuine need. We understand that these are providing the proper protection, but that some cases have experienced difficulty in proving that they were exempt. As I have already said, we are looking urgently and sympathetically to see what action should be taken, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that urgently does mean urgently.
824
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked me about getting a local doctor if a person is on the move. As she will well know, when a person moves to a new area he or she can apply for registration with the local doctor. The doctor can register that person permanently, but if that person is already registered with a doctor elsewhere, the local doctor can treat him as a temporary resident. That surely happens to us all, even if we are merely on holiday and need the services of a doctor.
The noble Lord, Lord banks, asked when the Government plan to announce further exemptions and what they are. That goes to the question of the sympathetic and speedy dealing with exemptions. We have always said that we were prepared to be flexible, and where a need is clearly established my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the powers and, as I have said, will look into any case that is brought to him as speedily as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked what effect the time limits would have on young people getting on local authority housing lists. Those people who are affected by the time limits—for instance, single young people or couples without dependants—are, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise, generally accorded very low priority on council housing lists. Those groups who have a higher priority and who would stand a good chance of being successful on lists are already exempted from the time limits.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me about youngsters being forced to move round the country and being deprived of the right to vote. As regards the electoral register and people who move in search of work and accommodation, that is a matter for the registration officer in whose area they are living at the qualifying date. It is for him to decide whether a person's residence is sufficiently permanent to qualify him for inclusion on the register. A young person unable to register in what may be regarded as temporary accommodation may nevertheless have been registered at his parents' or some other address. In that case he would apply for a postal vote in respect of parliamentary elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, spoke about the new limits which were leading to residential and nursing home closures and to people being forced to return to hospitals. We recognise that many organisations and proprietors are concerned about the level of the limits. The new limits are intended to allow reasonable charges to be met in homes satisfying the registration requirements, and we do not believe that the limits will result in lower standards or the mass closure of homes. We have drawn up protection arrangements for existing claimants which the noble Lord will know about. Nevertheless, as noble Lords are aware, we are already committed to reviewing the limits within 12 months of their coming into operation. It will be appropriate then to take acount of the experience of the new arrangements as further information obtained from representations and/or inquiries comes in to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also mentioned that it was the lowest increase in charges in 1984 for five years. What the noble Lord did not mention was the effect of the freeze on limits in 1984, which clearly affected the increase in average payments in 1984. I

825
hope I have answered the vital questions asked by your Lordships. I commend these regulations to your
Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife and Countryside (Service of Notices) Bill
8.30 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
More than anything else, this Bill is distinguished by the fact that it is the second Private Member's Bill amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that my honourable friend Dr. David Clark has introduced and successfully piloted through another place. I am not sure whether it is a record for a private Member to get two Bills on the statute book in the same Session of Parliament, but I suspect that it is extremely unusual.
This Bill amends the 1981 Act to ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council can successfully serve notices on owners and occupiers of land which is to be notified as a site of special scientific interest. The need for the amendment to the 1981 Act became clear after, in recent months, the Nature Conservancy Council lost two court cases where owners or occupiers claimed not to have received the notification which the Nature Conservancy Council said they had been sent.
The wording in the Bill follows, as is clear from the way it is drafted, the wording used in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and I think the wording is common to other legislation on the statute book. It simply ensures that the posting by due means of a communication to an owner or occupier will be taken as proof that it was received. This is a minor point in the complex law now affecting wildlife and the countryside, but it is nevertheless an important one and I hope that the Bill will receive support from your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Melchett.)
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on presenting this second small amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and my honourable friend in the other place for having the good fortune to be able to bring it forward in time to get it through this Session. I am sorry that the noble
826
Earl, Lord Onslow, is not here tonight because I know that he would be pleased to see that the wording of this Bill is very much the same as an amendment that he tried to move at Committee. I know that he, too, would welcome this Bill. I hope that it will go through as quickly as possible because we need the protection that it provides.
May I add a small, sour note, in that I am extremely sorry that either this could not have been included in the original Private Member's Bill or that the Government could not have found some way of bringing it through earlier. A lot of trouble might have been saved for a number of people, and some other sites, too, might have been saved. With that said, I wish the Bill a safe passage.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and his honourable friend Dr. Clark for bringing this little Bill before us. Its subject was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, covered in your Lordships' House at the Committee stage of what is now the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 by means of an amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Onslow. I, too, am sorry that he is not in his place this evening.
After a full discussion your Lordships agreed that my noble friend was quite right in both his assertions and his proposed solution. However, in the peculiar circumstances surrounding the various stages of the No. 1 Bill in your Lordships' House I gave an assurance then that the problems as to the serving of notices would be dealt with by administrative means, and your Lordships agreed that the subject would not be pursued at that time.
My Lords, the moving finger writes, and, having writ, moves on. We have a Bill before us today which will make the serving of notices by the NCC more effective than it has been in the past. The Government welcome this Bill, which will undoubtedly relieve the Nature Conservancy Council of a substantial administrative burden.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not think there is anything left for me to say except to thank my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the welcome they have given to the Bill. I hope, with my noble friend, that it will reach the statute book in the very
near future.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

District Salmon Fishery Boards (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
8.36 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Thurso.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Formation of boards where none exist]:
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13, and insert—
("(3) Within one month after the first meeting of a district board which has been constituted pursuant to the provisions of this section the clerk shall notify the Secretary of State that the district board has been so constituted.").
The noble Viscount said: At the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House there were a number of criticisms of the measure, and, in particular, of its drafting. These have been taken to heart. Some of the amendments which I am going to put before the Committee are obviously designed to rectify that. All of the amendments which I shall put before your Lordships are designed simply to produce the same kind of Bill as we discussed at Second Reading.
Before moving the first amendment, may I remind the Committee that the purpose, as I saw it, of the Bill was to give a unified structure to the salmon fishing industry of Scotland and to give new constitutions to district salmon fishery boards, upon which the new structure was to be based, which would allow them both to be large enough to be economically viable and to be democratically constructed so as to give fair consideration to all users as well as owners of salmon fisheries.
I think that that is enough in general about the purpose of the Bill. I refer now to Amendment No. 1 to Clause 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13, and insert—
("(3) Within one month after the first meeting of a district board which has been constituted pursuant to the provisions of this section the clerk shall notify the Secretary of State that the district board has been so constituted.").
This is a fairly straightforward substitution making certain that after holding the relevant meetings the Secretary of State is notified, and that the clerk in fact reports the formation of the boards in question. These are the lapsed boards. This is a fairly straightforward drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: May I ask what happens to the chairman in this new set-up?
Viscount Thurso: There is no new set-up at this stage. The elections would be held under the existing Acts and therefore the chairman is the chairman as provided under the existing Act. At this stage of the procedure there is no change in the constitution of the boards. One is electing the boards under existing legislation and therefore there is no need to mention the chairman. It is at a later stage that the question of the chairman falls to be considered.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Surely it does not fall to be considered. Surely under the existing legislation of 1862 the chairman is automatic in relation to the formula laid down there. I wonder whether the noble Viscount can let the Committee know the nature of that election of the chairman?
Viscount Thurso: It is fairly clear that this is being done under existing legislation where the chairman is automatically the person with the largest rateable assessment. This is the existing position, as the boards would be constituted under existing legislation. The largest proprietor would be the chairman.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is right. It is the proprietors, also, the upper proprietors and the lower proprietors, as so defined. I do not know who is defining them nowadays. In the original Act the commissioners defined them. The proprietor with the largest amount on the valuation roll shall be the chairman and he shall have not only a deliberative vote but also a casting vote. So there is the set-up. The set-up is purely and simply one of the proprietors of the fishings. This is not something on which I should base the restructuring and regeneration of the whole industry, important as that is. I do not think this is the way to do it.
I made clear earlier that I was not satisfied with the Bill. I am not satisfied with the Bill now. We have had a long time to think about it. Consider how we have been pressed for time on all sorts of other matters: we could not have time even for Scottish rates, the matter of expenditure of £50 million, yet we have all the time on this Bill that is going nowhere because it is a Private Member's Bill. In another place they have finished with Private Members' Bills at this time unless the Government themselves espouse a Bill; I doubt whether they will. Even if they did, I doubt whether there is any time for that. I reckon we are wasting our time, having had this lying about for about five months since Second Reading, which was given with a certain measure of reluctance. I am surprised to find that the thing is still alive.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is being rather unfair. First, he has not taken the trouble to read the Bill. If he had read the Bill and my proposed amendments he would have realised that the intention is to take the existing structure and to modernise it. He will see that I am just as aware as he is that there is something wrong in having a structure which depends solely upon ownership. On the other hand, it would be equally wrong to have a structure that depended upon leaving out the owners of the rivers altogether.

829
The noble Lord's criticism of this amendment is grossly unfair because what we are trying to do is to take the existing structure and to bring it all into being. This is the first move. One cannot alter something unless it exists. The trouble with the district board structure is that it exists only in areas where the rivers or the district boards are big enough to be viable on their own. To amalgamate the boards we have to bring them all into existence first. This is what we are trying to do in this clause. Later we go on to endeavour to alter the structure to bring it more up to date and we shall deal with that when we come to it.
As to the noble Lord's criticism of the length of time that it has taken, it seems to me that he has criticised the Bill on two diametrically opposed grounds. The first is that the Bill has taken a long time to come before the Committee and the other is that it has somehow been consuming time. It has not been consuming anybody's time except mine and that of other people who have tabled amendments. The fact that it has taken a long time to bring the Bill before the Committee is partially due to pressure of other business. We have bowed to the pressure of other business, but we felt that it was useful to bring forward this Bill and discuss these matters. For over 20 years and through periods of Government when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was Secretary of State for Scotland no action whatever took place to modernise the salmon industry. This is what we are now trying to do.
I must not delay the Committee any longer but I feel that it is only right that I should answer the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, on his remarks and to move that we accept Amendment No. 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 1 shall be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content".
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To the contrary, "Not-Content".
Lord Ross of Marnock:
Not Content.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Ross of Marnock: Now we have Clause 1 and this is the basic structure on which we are to reorganise Scottish fishing in these rivers. One of the things that suprises me is that if this is such a good idea why is it in such a weak and parlous state? There was power to create boards, and further power was taken in 1868 to achieve district boards (there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm for them) by giving power to two proprietors. It is still on the statute book. Can we not use that? It takes just two proprietors to get at the Secretary of State and have a fishery board constituted. Why has it not happened? I do not think it is as simple as the noble Viscount says. This is just not enough.
830
When it comes to reorganisation I do not know who he consulted but any letters I have had from angling clubs and individual anglers—a great many in Scotland are concerned about the future of angling—are far from satisfied with the Bill, based as it is purely and simply on the proprietorial interests.
For example, the Avon Angling Club, which covers part of the Clyde, represents about 750 adults and 200 juvenile members. No one can tell me that is not a fairly important river and has been fairly important for a long time. They say:
"indeed, we believe, on behalf of all ordinary anglers in Scotland. We have … a Bill launched by Viscount Thurso on 21st November 1984 in which it is proposed to set up District Fishery Boards in Scotland where none exist at present. This Club, and we believe most other Clubs with a bulk of working class members are totally opposed to such Boards as past experience of such shows that they do not operate in the best interests of the ordinary angler".
I should not like to read out the rest of it. What I read is the more polite part of the letter in relation to their feelings about this particular Bill. So I am not in favour of Clause 1 standing part. I do not know what the Government feel about this. I think that we should hear what the Government think about it.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): I had not intended to speak at this stage of the proceedings but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made a fair point. Perhaps it would be a courtesy to the Committee if I indicated the Government's position on this. Your Lordships will remember that when we had the Second Reading debate I made it perfectly clear that the Government could not accept this Bill. We considered that it had many limitations. We considered that amendments could do little to improve it, and I am afraid that that must still be the position of the Govenment. The Bill is not in a position, even with the amendments which have been tabled tonight, to be made in any way acceptable to the Government. I think that I must be perfectly forthcoming in saying that to the Committee.
Having said that, I think that the debate that we had on Second Reading was useful in as much as it allowed views and opinions from various parts of your Lordships' House to be developed and explained. I hope that during this brief Committee stage we may build further upon that. It may well be that at some future time the Government themselves will seek to legislate in this matter. I have little doubt that the views and expressions which have been declared in the Committee by your Lordships will be taken into account and will be of use to us at that time. While I would not consider asking your Lordships actually to vote against Clause 1, I must reiterate the Government's position—that the Government could not support the Motion that Clause 1 stand part.
Viscount Thurso: I can only reiterate that I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is being deliberately obtuse or deliberately unfair. Clause 1 seeks only to implement the statutory provisions which already exist. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said that he would like to change the statutory provisions which exist; but it is physically impossible to carry out these changes without implementing the existence of the boards to begin with. The main thing to do is to

831
amalgamate the boards, because the boards have lapsed. We are talking about lapsed boards. They have lapsed because they are not big enough to draw a big enough rating assessment in order to run a business which is laid upon them to run. Therefore, they opt out of doing this by simply lapsing because they do not have the powers under existing legislation to amalgamate. What we are trying to do here is to bring them into existence and then give them the powers to amalgamate so that we can then alter their constitution and bring them into line with what is desirable in this modern day and age. It is very unfair to say that the boards have not done a good job, because on many rivers where there are big enough and viable boards an excellent job of conservation and management is being carried out.
I do not think that the Clyde is exactly the best example to take of a district board. Unfortunately, owing to the pollution which went into the Clyde, the salmon went out. It is only now that the Clyde is being cleaned up, very successfully cleaned up, that there is any hope that the salmon will start to run back into it again. I do not think that this is germane to the discussion. The discussion here is on whether Clause 1 should stand part. That is really the whole structure of the Bill. We are saying that we will take the legislation that exists and we will put the boards into existence so that we can then alter them.
Of course, you can say that you do not like the Bill. That is perfectly possible. But if you are going to give any sort of a reading to this Bill and see what happens later on, then it is only fair that we should at this stage let Clause 1 stand part and get on to discussing what is really important here and what is of importance to anglers, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has freely confessed that he is not one. Then let us get on to the advantages that could accrue from the alterations which are suggested in the Bill. I beg to move that the clause stand part.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The suggestion that I am not an angler does not mean that I do not have any interest in angling. I have a considerable interest in angling. I would not like to list the angling associations, not on the Clyde but in Ayrshire, of which I am the president and have been the president for quite a long time. I am interested in the future of our rivers and in salmon fishing. I think it right to say that the Government themselves are looking at this from the point of view of much more comprehensive legislation. Indeed, if the noble Viscount had been fair, he would have been concerned about the trouble I took over the Hunter Report (as I think it was called) which bedevilled me for many years and in respect of which some action over certain rivers was taken in, I think, 1975 or 1976, or later.
What I am getting at is the fact that the basis is not a sound basis. It may be the only basis that the noble Viscount can see; but the very fact that that was there and laid down in 1862, and amended in 1868 giving further powers to proprietors, and the fact that it has not worked over the greater part of Scotland is proof that the base upon which he is seeking to build is not necessarily the right one. That is how I feel about it.
832
What he does thereafter is to introduce other possible ways of getting money, apart from the assessments. These again are things on which he seems to have failed to consult the angling clubs to see whether they approved of this. There are more than proprietors interested in this. From the point of view of the ordinary angler in Scotland, this does not meet his needs and hopes for the future of fishing in Scotland.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Reconstitution of lapsed boards]:
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
("(2) Within one month after the first meeting of a district board which has been constituted pursuant to the provisions of this section the clerk shall notify the Secretary of State that the district board has been so constituted.").
The noble Viscount said: I do not propose to rehearse the same arguments over and over again. I should like to get on to the meat of the Bill. This clause deals with those district boards which have never been constituted, in the same way as the previous clause dealt with those district boards which had lapsed. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I think it would be only right that I should point out to the noble Viscount that this amendment is defective as it assumes wrongly that there is provision in the Bill for a meeting to take place. This provision does not exist and, under the compulsion theme of the Bill, it would be necessary to specify that a meeting should take place.
9 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: I am personally advised that this would be sufficient to produce a meeting of those boards which had not previously existed. But I should certainly be glad to discuss this matter with the noble Lord, and if I am wrong in this, to produce some other amendment at some other stage.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am, of course, perfectly happy to discuss this with the noble Viscount at any time. However, I would question his reference to "some other stage". At this stage in the proceedings, I doubt very much whether it would be advisable to have any further stage. I think that if we have a committee stage of this Bill, that will be about the sum and substance of it. But that is not in my hands. It is in the hands of the noble Viscount.
I would just remind him of one point. If we have a further stage, then there is a certain cost involved. There is the cost of having the Bill reprinted. I wonder whether it is justified to consider a further stage of a Bill at this stage in the Session, when we have already had a very full Second Reading and are having an interesting, and I hope constructive, Committee stage.
Viscount Thurso: We are certainly having an interesting Committee stage, in which I feel like the oats between the upper and the nether millstone. But we shall not even have a Committee stage if we go on at the present rate of striking. I am not at this point talking about any further stages, but if we are to go on

833
and have any useful discussion on the rest of the Bill I feel that I have to leave this clause as it stands; that it is necessary; and that it is adequately drafted. I shall need to discuss the matter in more detail with the noble Lord, Lord Gray, if he is to persuade me that it is not properly drafted. Therefore, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): The Question is that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".
Noble Lords: "Content".
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To the contrary, "Not-Content".
Lord Ross of Marnock: Not-Content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Clear the Bar. It will probably destroy the whole thing if you do.
Lord Gray of Contin: With respect, Lord Chairman, you looked at me. I made no comment. I am not in any way taking part in this.
Lord Tryon: May I suggest that the Question is put again?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Let us try again. The Question is that Amendment No. 2 be
agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amalgamation]:
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("State") to end of line 23 and insert—
("(2A) Notwithstanding the terms of sections 18 and 19 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1862 the Secretary of State shall have the power to appoint to be members of any district board persons to represent the interests of persons holding a lease of a net fishery and of local salmon angling associations; and such persons shall be appointed only after consultation with such bodies or persons as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of the interests of those so concerned within the board area.
(2B) In exercising his power of appointment under the foregoing subsection the Secretary of State shall ensure that the number of persons so appointed as representing those holding a lease of a net fishery shall be equal to the number of persons so appointed as representing local salmon angling associations; but always that the combined total so appointed shall be less than the aggregate number of upper and lower proprietors as provided for in sections 18 and 19 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1862.").
The noble Marquess said: This amendment is proposed as an alternative to the Bill's provision for the election of an equal number of members of boards representing anglers and netsmen. It suggests that instead the clause should provide that representatives of local angling associations and netsmen should be appointed to the boards by the Secretary of State from
834
lists of nominations given to the Secretary of State by representative bodies. The number of such members should be less in total than that of rod and net proprietors. The reason behind this amendment is that the rod and net proprietors are surely the people who have the long-term interest of the river at heart. They are also, of course, the people who pay for the management of the river.
I think that this method might be simpler and more practical than the method suggested by the noble Viscount. The amendment is presented to your Lordships only for consideration and discussion, but it seems to me that it offers a simpler and wiser method of setting up these boards. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I should like to support the clause of my noble friend. It achieves a wider representation of fishing interests on boards than that at present, by empowering the Secretary of State to appoint an equal number of tenant netsmen and tenant anglers with a combined total less than the aggregate number of upper and lower proprietors. But it could be argued that the latter category should not be in the majority. Yet if that were not so, then a system of levies and elections for tenants would probably come to be necessary if their representation is to be exactly equal with that of owners. That option might, of course, be the best and no doubt the matter should be investigated further before your Lordships' Committee comes back to it at Report or some further stage. As it stands, however, my noble friend's clause achieves wider representation on boards without introducing the complications of levies and elections.
Lord Gray of Contin: I must make it clear that the Government have very considerable reservations about this amendment, both on the principle and on technical grounds. On the principle, we do not think it is desirable for the Government to be involved in the constitution of fishery boards, as is proposed in the amendment. I know that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has very considerable experience in these matters, but on this issue I would have doubt as to whether he proposes to follow the best The present system, whereby the Secretary of State is removed from this area of activity, seems to me to be quite satisfactory, and I see no good ground for changing it. On the technical points, the clause is defective. There is no reference to the length of tenure of appointments. If there was no leased net fishery operation in a particular district, no anglers could be appointed and this would be an unreasonable restriction on angling representation.
On quite a different point, it seems to me that this amendment is at variance with Amendment No. 5, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. But no doubt the noble Viscount himself will have noted that and will explain the difference, if there is any difference. But as I see it this amendment is directly at variance with Amendment No. 5. I am afraid that the Government could not look sympathetically on this amendment, and I hope that on reflection my noble friend will consider withdrawing it.
Viscount Thurso: I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, that indeed this

835
amendment is defective in one or two respects. For instance, not only might there not be tenant netsmen, as he described, but also there might very well not be local salmon angling associations on a river. There are many rivers where these two simply do not exist. I prefer the solution which I am putting forward in Amendment No. 5, which is really the sum and substance of the Bill.
In spite of the unfavourable start to this Bill, I consider that it is basically an anglers' charter. What I should like it to do is to provide equal representation for every party involved in the use, enjoyment and exploitation of a river. I am not happy that rivers should be run solely by proprietors, however great the responsibilities which lie upon the proprietors' shoulders at present. I feel that in seeking any solution to the problems of the management of the salmon industry we have to bring in all the users of the salmon: not only the anglers but also the tenant netsmen, who at the moment have no say at all, although they pay all the rates in most instances, because the rates bill is passed straight to them, along with their rent bill, by the Crown Estates Commissioners. So I cannot agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, that this is a good way to go about the matter. I prefer Amendment No. 5 when we get to it, with the principle of equal representation on a much more democratic basis.
Also, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord the Minister is against the principle of placing the onus of appointing members of district fishery boards upon the shoulders of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I agree with him that it would be a very bad thing, and I think it is right that we should seek solutions from among the people who use, enjoy and exploit salmon fishings, whether in the river or at sea. I would therefore join the noble Lord, Lord Gray, in asking the noble Marquess whether he would reconsider this amendment and withdraw it at this stage.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I am very grateful to the Minister for his intervention here. One of the reasons for putting down this amendment at all was to draw arguments from your Lordships. Of course, I am entirely in favour of broadening the basis of representation on the river boards. I said this in the Second Reading debate on the Bill and I have no reason to alter my opinion now. My only reservation, and it is probably not a very strong one, is that those who really are involved with rivers in the way that owners are have—I use the expression deliberately—a vested interest in their continued health which is perhaps slightly different from the point of view of the occasional angler using the river.
I should like to make this point. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I have a feeling that the attitude that there is strong opposition among anglers is fortunately gradually disappearing. I think we are all beginning to realise that somehow or other we have to conserve the salmon so that a very valuable asset may be maintained and this sport, enjoyed by members of the angling associations, may continue. Really and truly, I think that our interests are not anything like so
836
much in conflict as sometimes people are inclined to say. But, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw
the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 4.
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:
"Amalgamation of district boards.
3.—(1) When a district board has been constituted each such district board shall consult with neighbouring district boards with a view to amalgamating district boards wherever it is appropriate so to do in the interests of better management of the salmon industry and conservation and protection of salmon stocks.
(2) As soon as may be after such consultation each district board shall submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amalgamation of their district board with any neighbouring district boards or a statement of reasons why no such amalgamation should take place.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order provide for—

(a) the amalgamation of district boards in accordance with proposals submitted to him under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section; or

(b) the amalgamation of district boards in such other manner as he thinks fit.

(4) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, decline to amalgamate a district board with another district board.
(5) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under this section in such manner as he thinks will promote better management of the salmon industry and conservation and protection of salmon stocks.
(6) Before providing for the amalgamation of any district boards under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section the Secretary of State shall cause to be published once in each of two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area of such district boards his own proposals for amalgamation of the said district boards and shall give due opportunity to any district board or person affected by such proposals to object thereto and be heard in support of such objection.
(7) Amalgamations of district boards under this section shall take place on the new constitution date.
(8) Subject to the provisions of this Act, district boards amalgamated by order made under this section shall thenceforth be constituted as and form one board with the same powers and functions and subject to the same provisions as a board constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1862.
(9) When the Secretary of State has provided by order under subsection (3) of this section for the amalgamation of district boards, he shall appoint as clerk to each proposed amalgamated district board one of the clerks to its constituent district boards.").
The noble Viscount said: This is a redrafting of Clause 3. We come to the part of the Bill which deals with the real problems of district fishery boards and the organisation of the salmon industry.
It should be said, and said out loud and said with some conviction, that district fishery boards have done a good job. They have done a good job for 100 years. For a large part of that time they have constituted the only organisation that has been acting on behalf of the salmon stocks of Scotland. I do not think that they need be ashamed of what they have done. But they were set up at a time when things were very different from what they are now. In those days the idea of franchise was quite different from what it is now; the attitude towards property of this kind was quite different from what it is now; and what was possible on a single river at that time would have been different from what it is now.
This clause deals, first, with the biggest single problem which faces district fishery boards today. Many of them are not big enough to be able to survive. Any solution, whether it is Hunter's solution, whether it is one of the solutions which have been put forward in discussion papers by the Ministry of Agriculture or whether it is one of the solutions that have been put forward by various other bodies within the salmon industry—any solution has to come down on the side of expanded boards to administer salmon fisheries. It is no good anybody saying that that is not so.
What I am trying to do here in this Bill is to produce a situation whereby these amalgamations can be done on a voluntary basis; where, if you like, it is a marriage of choice rather than a shotgun wedding; and where people locally can look at their problems together and say, "We could fit in nicely with this river next door or that catchment next door. We can produce a plan that we can put to the Secretary of State". Alternatively, indeed, as was pointed out during Second Reading, a single river board might perhaps turn round and say, "No, we are in fact doing the job adequately. At the moment, we are able to raise enough money to carry out our obligations, and at the moment we feel we would prefer to remain as a single river board".
Under this clause, as soon as district boards have been set up all over Scotland the onus is laid upon them to consult among themselves and put forward proposals as to how they might—or perhaps should not—amalgamate in the interests of producing large enough viable boards. Under the new clause a district board having been constituted would have laid upon it the obligation to consult,
"with neighbouring district boards with a view to amalgamating district boards wherever it is appropriate so to do in the interests of better management of the salmon industry and conservation and protection of salmon stocks".
That is the crux of the whole matter. As soon as may be after such consultation, each district board has to submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amalgamation with any neighbouring district boards,
"or a statement of reasons why no such amalgamation should take place".
That is to allow for the individual rivers which have no need to amalgamate, or which do not wish to amalgamate with certain other rivers, to make their case.
The Secretary of State then has information about who is willing to amalgamate with whom, and he has information about which rivers feel that they are already viable enough and do not need to amalgamate. At that stage, there could of course be rivers left over which nobody loves and which nobody perhaps wanted enough and which were to a degree problem rivers. They would have to be dealt with, and so we allow in subsection (3):
"The Secretary of State may by order provide for
(a) the amalgamation of district boards in accordance with proposals submitted to him",
or,
"(b) the amalgamation of district boards in such other manner as he thinks fit".
In other words, the Secretary of State might have to say to somebody, "You should really take in this other
838
little river because it would be helpful". This subsection would give him the power to do so.
In subsection (4), the Secretary of State,
"may, if he thinks fit, decline to amalgamate a district board with another district board",
if he thinks that it is not in the interests of good management of the industry or of conservation and preservation of stocks. This subsection would also allow him to permit a single river board to continue without amalgamation. Again, the onus is laid on the Secretary of State to exercise the powers given to him in this clause in such manner as he thinks will promote,
"better management of the salmon industry and conservation and protection of salmon stocks".
And that is the object of the whole exercise.
The proposed new clause provides also, in the later subsections, for public notification of amalgamations, for the provision of a date by which amalgamations shall take place, for the new construction of the amalgamated board and for the appointment of a clerk to run the amalgamated board. This marks the next step along the road to modernisation of the district salmon fishery boards structure. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The proposed new clause would give considerable new powers of intervention to the Secretary of State, and it is not altogether clear. I notice that it says the district boards shall consult. They have no option, and must do so. Having consulted, they,
"shall submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amalgamation…or a statement of reasons why no such amalgamation should take place".
It does not end there. Thereafter the Secretary of State may (and the word "shall" has conveniently disappeared) by order provide for amalgamations as submitted to him in any way that he thinks fit. Also, the Secretary of State,
"may, if he thinks fit, decline to amalgamate a district board with another district board".
I presume that also means that even though a district board may give a statement of reasons why an amalgamation should not take place, the Secretary of State may order the board to amalgamate. That is implicit in the power given to the Secretary of State. I should like to know what the Scottish Office thinks of those powers.
This is a very important matter for the Secretary of State. After all, the first Secretary for Scotland was appointed not simply because there was the convergence of two dukedoms but because he had the best salmon river in Scotland. That was why the first Secretary for Scotland was created in the year 1885. Although we mention the Secretary of State in the 1962 Act and the 1968 Act it is not the Secretary of State for Scotland. There was not a Secretary of State for Scotland and there was not even a Secretary for Scotland at that time. However, the importance of the Secretary of State becomes clear as we read this, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State wants these powers.
Lord Gray of Contin: I do not oppose this new clause but I think it is probably right that I should point out

839
the weaknesses contained in it. The clause brings out a weakness in the whole drafting of the Bill in so far as there is confusion between the effect of references to district boards, on the one hand, and districts, on the other. Without amalgamated districts it is illogical to provide for the amalgamation of boards.
The wording of subsections (1) and (2) brings out the serious weaknesses in such a sweeping, mandatory approach to amalgamations as is proposed. The effect of the provisions would be to engage all boards in intensive consultations on an ill-defined scale. For example, there is reference to neighbouring boards, which is far too wide. Boards will have neighbours on more than one side and adjacent boards would also have neighbours. There is also no time limit for the period of consultation or submission of proposals to the Secretary of State. This could lead to one or more boards being able to hold up the progress of other boards and generally create an air of uncertainty.
The remaining subsections, with the exception of subsection (5), deal with the procedure for establishing the existence of district boards. There are a number of weaknesses in the procedure. For example, at subsection (7) the amalgamation of district boards on the new constitution date is incompatible with the proposed constitution of boards under the new clause introduced in Amendment No. 5. Also, there is reference in subsection (8) to the boards being thenceforth constituted by order. Subsection (9) introduces a further defect. It is inappropriate to involve the Secretary of State in the appointment of a clerk to each amalgamated board as at present this should be the function of the board itself.
Subsection (5) sits oddly with the rest of the subsections in that if it was judged appropriate to have a reference to lay such requirements on the Secretary of State this would be more appropriately conferred on the Secretary of State as part of his general responsibility in the salmon area rather than in the narrow context of amalgamated boards. On the detailed wording of the subsection the reference to the salmon industry is ambiguous. It is not clear whether this could be read as extending to salmon farming, which is no part of the function of a district board.
I would be very sad if I thought that the Committee considered me to be carping in these remarks, because they are certainly not intended in that spirit; but since I have been challenged on this point I think it only fair to point out the limitations. Indeed, these limitations run throughout the Bill and that accounts for the attitude which the Government have taken towards it. Unhappily the amendments do not put right these imperfections. It is for that reason that I am afraid the Government still cannot give their support to the Bill. I say those words more in sorrow than in anger and I hope that the noble Viscount will accept what I have said in the spirit in which it is meant.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: Unlike my noble friend on the Front Bench, I should like to oppose the proposed new clause. I say this somewhat shyly. I do not come from north of the Border. I am a keen salmon fisherman and I was hoping to bring up various points later in our discussion. But it seems to me that there are a great
840
number of faults in this Bill. I appreciate that it is a difficult Bill to frame and that it has been framed in the very best of faith and indeed with a great deal of knowledge; but we have been told quite clearly that it is not going to go any further than this and therefore it has no future. I cannot really believe that this discussion will be of huge value for any future legislation, because I am sure that when we discuss anything in future along these lines—I hope that something of a very positive nature comes soon to help the salmon in its rather difficult progress through life—then will be the time to bring forward arguments when they are fresh in the mind.
So, like my noble friend, I say very sadly indeed that I am in favour of opposing this clause, which, as far as I can see, will effectively spoil the Bill, simply because I feel that something of this kind should come forward at the proper stage with the proper backing so that we can really get down to it and do something for the salmon population in Scotland and perhaps, God willing, in other parts of the British Isles as well.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to support my noble friend. I know that the noble Viscount, as he explained to me before the Second Reading, has been and still is very keen that the progress of the Bill and this stage should ensure that the facts and the ideas were exposed so that they would all be on record for future framers of legislation. I was unable to be here at the beginning of the discussion of the first amendment, so I missed what was said, but it seems to me that the facts that are needed and the arguments that are required to be exposed are on record as a result of the Second Reading; and from what I have heard in the last few minutes of this discussion, I am not sure that we are getting any further. So with great regret I support my noble friend.
Lord Tryon: I sense we are moving into the possibly procedural end of the discussions. I have made no contribution so far, having missed the Second Reading debate because I was abroad, when I should have had quite a lot to say. I do not intend to give your Lordships a Second Reading speech now. The only noises I have made so far were to try and keep this debate alive, which has been quite difficult at times because knowing what to say was never all that easy, and I noticed that several people, on a slightly tactical note, were trying to do the same thing.
I tend to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that we will probably not get much further tonight. I am sorry to have to say it to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who has been trying hard to get these views across and debated; and the point—to which I must come quickly—is really for the Government, but as regards what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso called the interesting debate which was developing here, frankly I do not think it has been all that interesting. We have all been terribly defensive and both Front Benches have been hostile to the whole proceedings in one way or another, but I should hate this debate to end in an atmosphere which implied that salmon in Scotland was not a subject worth talking about. I hope that the Government will seriously consider proper

841
legislation fairly soon, with much greater support than this Bill has had, to do something about a serious issue which no one has addressed for a very long time.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. We are getting some balance into this. Salmon fishing is worth talking about. We have talked about it many times in your Lordships' House. It is an abiding interest of both Front Benches, and its importance has been pressed in both Houses.
My concern is that it does this Committee no credit, because we are polite, to allow something to pass which is riddled with imperfections. We pride ourselves on our efficiency in studying details and putting things right, yet we have passed a clause that the Government said they could not vote for because of technical imperfections. They have said the same thing about this amendment. I do not think it does your Lordships' Committee or the noble Viscount credit for him to force the issue and depend on the rest of us being polite. He knows quite well that if we call a Division and there are fewer than 30 noble Lords, his Bill is finished. I doubt whether there are 30 noble Lords in the building. We have been prompted by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches, who is certainly aware of what might happen, as is our noble Chairman.
We ask the noble Viscount to listen to what the Government are saying about the weaknesses and imperfections of the Bill and the undesirability, even at this stage, of allowing things to pass into law which we know are not right.
Viscount Thurso: I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that I am too polite to him.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have never accused the noble Viscount of that.
Viscount Thurso: I could try to mend my ways! Politeness is not spoiling the development of the Bill; nobody is being polite. What unfortunately is lacking is any effort by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to bring forward amendments. So far, all that he has done is to criticise the Bill and suggest that the clauses should not stand part of it.
There may be imperfections in the Bill. I am prepared to believe that there are. It is difficult for a Private Member's Bill not to have imperfections. It would have been helpful to have had a few amendments, perhaps seeking to put right a few of the imperfections. At this stage I have tried to set down sufficient amendments so that we can discuss the various parts of it. If we drop it at this stage, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, suggests, we shall not be able to consider what I believe to be one of the most interesting clauses—the concept of the democratically chosen and equally balanced district board. Alas, it looks as though we shall never be able to discuss that; nor, indeed, shall we be able to discuss the interesting suggestions of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in which he seeks to define various forms of net and fishing. That is a useful exercise. At the moment we vaguely rely on case law to know whether we are doing things right.
842
But, of course, if it is the wish of your Lordships' Committee that we cease discussion, I shall be ruled by that. There is no way in which I can force further discussion on the Bill. If it is the wish of the two Front Benches to get together and kill it, killed it will he. All I can do is move my amendments as they come along and try to explain the philosophy on which they are based and the reasons for moving them. All I can do at this stage is to move Amendment No. 4, putting in a new Clause 3.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I may briefly answer the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I rather resent his suggestion that the two Front Benches have come together to try to kill the Bill. If this Bill is going to be killed, it will be killed by one person only and that is the noble Viscount, through his sheer thrawn attitude. When the Bill was introduced initially for Second Reading it was made abundantly clear to the noble Viscount that the Government could not accept it; that if the noble Viscount cared to proceed to a Committee stage that was entirely a matter for him. He proceeded to a Committee stage.
The amendments which have been brought forward do nothing, and as other Members of this Committee have pointed out patently do nothing, to improve the Bill, and the noble Viscount still, through his thraw, seeks to proceed with this Bill. I do not think there is any question of either Front Bench trying to kill the Bill. I think the noble Viscount will do that of his own accord in due course.
Viscount Thurso: Is the Minister saying that the Bill cannot be made a worthwhile measure by amendments to it introduced by the Government?
Lord Gray of Contin: No; I am certainly not saying that. The noble Viscount makes a valid point. What I pointed out at an early stage was that the Government did not consider that the Bill could by amendment be brought into such a state as would make it worthwhile for the Government to take it up. I also explained quite clearly that because we had a very full discussion at Second Reading, many points were raised of which I took note. In due course, and at a time when the Government find it possible to introduce legislation of their own, the points raised by various Members of this Committee will certainly be considered in the preparation of that legislation. Thus there is absolutely no question of the Government trying to kill this Bill. That is not the case at all.
The Government have listened patiently. They have had discussions with the noble Viscount both before Second Reading and since Second Reading. From the way that the Committee stage has developed tonight it seems abundantly clear to me that the consensus of opinion among those Members of the Committee who are present is that we really are not making much progress with the Committee stage. I doubt the wisdom of proceeding. But that is not in my hands; it is in the hands of the noble Viscount.
Lord Tryon: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, can he give us any more encouragement than that as to when we might hear something more from the Government on this subject? People ask this

843
question every day. I have already agreed, in my previous remarks, that we have gone as far as we can tonight without probably doing damage to the cause of salmon fishing and the things that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is trying to achieve. Can the Minister give us any assurances that this will be thought about longer and harder?
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, who has been extremely helpful in our discussions this evening. I am sure that he will appreciate that at this stage it simply is not possible for me to give an indication of when the Government might be likely to introduce legislation. I can assure him that there is very great competition, as is always the case in every Government, for parliamentary time. However, the question of the fishing industry, and salmon in particular, is being very carefully considered by the Government. More than that I cannot say; nor would I wish to give any indication of when legislation might come forward.
Viscount Thurso: I have been accused of being thrawn. I do not consider it to be thrawn to try to get a full and detailed discussion on one way of solving an important part of the salmon problem in Scotland. I do not consider it thrawn to keep trying to bring the matter before your Lordships or before any public forum in this country when we all know that nothing has happened of any real substance to change the structure of the salmon industry or to give powers to people to deal with the problems that have faced them day to day since the Hunter Report over 20 years ago.
That report was produced at a time when there were grave problems facing the salmon industry. Nothing had been done for 20, 30 or 40 years before that. I do not think that a little effort to get discussion on some of the ways in which these problems can be solved is being thrawn. I resent being told that I am thrawn in this matter just as much as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, resents being told that he is trying to kill the Bill. In the nicest possible way, he declared his intention not to help the Bill at the very start. He has certainly carried out his intention. All that I can do is to try to carry on with this Committee stage. If your Lordships do not want to carry on with it, there is nothing I can do. I am not being thrawn. I am just doing the job that I am here to do. I go back to what I said before. I beg to move
Amendment No. 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
New Clause 3 agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Constitution of district boards.
.—(1) On the new constitution date, district boards shall comprise an equal number of—

(a) upper proprietors qualified to be elected under the provisions of the Act of 1862;

(b) lower proprietors qualified to be elected under the provisions of the Act of 1862;

(c) tenants of net fisheries in the district of the district board;

844

(d)anglers who have fished legally on a river within the district of the district board for a period of not less than one week during the 12 months preceding the preparation of the roll of such anglers under subsection (3) of this section.

(2) The Secretary of State shall by order prescribe the number of persons to be elected to each district board from the new constitution date provided that it shall not be less than 12.
(3) Not less than 3 months before the new constitution date the upper proprietors and lower proprietors in a district shall furnish the clerk to the district board for that district with the names and addresses of those tenants and anglers qualified to be elected to a district board under subsection (1) of this section whereupon the clerk to each district board shall form rolls of upper proprietors, lower proprietors, tenants and anglers qualified to be elected under subsection (1) of this section.
(4) Every roll made up by a clerk to a district board pursuant to subsection (3) of this section shall be made available for inspection by the public at reasonable times.
(5) The clerk to each district board shall call meetings of the said upper proprietors, lower proprietors, tenants and anglers at such times and places as he shall direct with a view to conducting elections of upper proprietors, lower proprietors, tenants and anglers to the district board in like manner and subject to the same provisions as those prescribed in the Act of 1862 for elections of upper proprietors and lower proprietors.
(6) At the first meeting of a district board after the new constitution date, and at the first meeting of a district board after subsequent elections thereto, the district board shall elect from among their own number a chairman who shall remain in office until the next elections to the district board and who shall have a deliberative as well as a casting vote.
(7) After the new constitution date elections to district boards shall be held triennially in the manner prescribed for elections under the Act of 1862 and this Act.
(8) The persons elected to a district board shall remain in office until the next elections to the district board when they shall be eligible for re-election.
(9) In this section, where the context so requires, "district board" includes a district board which is to be formed by the amalgamation of existing district boards, "district" includes the combined districts of such district boards and "clerk" includes a clerk appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (9) of section (Amalgamation of district boards) of this Act to be clerk to a proposed amalgamated district board.
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is really the amendment, above all, which I suggest to the Committee as being the one worthy of consideration. I have stated earlier that I consider that this Bill is really an anglers' charter. I believe that it could be. I feel that having reconstituted the district boards so that they are viable, it would be the first duty of ourselves as legislators and anyone else who has to do with the administration of the salmon industry to give a say to all the interested parties; that is, the anglers, the proprietors and the netsmen—the tenant netsmen as well as the owners of the nettings.
This new clause proposes that on the new constitution date district boards should comprise an equal number of upper proprietors qualified to be elected under the provisions of the 1862 Act, lower proprietors qualified to be elected under the provisions of the Act of 1862, tenants of net fisheries of the district board and anglers who have fished legally on a river within the district of a district board for a period of not less than one week during the 12 months preceding the preparation of the roll of such anglers under subsection (3) of this clause. As can be seen, the idea of this clause is that there should be four parties in the electorate, as it were. One party would be upper proprietors and one party would be lower proprietors, as is the case at the moment. A third party would be anglers and a fourth party would be tenant netsmen.
The idea is that they should be equal so that there would be no bias in favour of tenants against proprietors or proprietors against tenants, or of anglers against netsmen or netsmen against anglers. I believe that this could work provided that they are given the chance to elect from among their number, as will be seen, a chairman who they would elect by consensus. A structure of this sort would be one of the most valuable constitutions that could be given to the district boards, and it is with that in mind that I have put it forward. In this clause the Secretary of State would be able:
"by order to prescribe the number of persons to be elected to each district board from the new constitution date provided that it shall not be less than 12."
Obviously, very big rivers would require a bigger representation.
"Not less than 3 months before the new constitution date the upper proprietors and lower proprietors in a district shall furnish the clerk to the district board for that district with the names and addresses of those tenants and anglers qualified to be elected to a district board under subsection (1) of this section whereupon the clerk to each district board shall form rolls of upper proprietors, lower proprietors, tenants and anglers qualified to be elected under subsection (1) of this section."
Subsection (4) says:
"Every roll made up by a clerk … shall be available for inspection by the public at reasonable times.
"(5) The clerk to each district board shall call meetings of the said upper proprietors, lower proprietors, tenants and anglers at such times and places as he shall direct with a view to conducting elections"
of the representatives of those various bodies.
"(6) At the first meeting of a district board after the new constitution date, and at the first meeting of a district board after subsequent elections thereto, the district board shall elect from among their own number a chairman who shall remain in office until the next elections to the district board and who shall have a deliberative as well as a casting vote.
(7) After the new constitution date elections to district boards shall be held triennially in the manner prescribed for elections under the Act of 1862 and this Act.
(8) The persons elected to a district board shall remain in office until the next elections to the district board when they shall be eligible for re-election.
(9) In this section, where the context so requires, 'district board' includes a district board which is to be formed by the amalgamation of existing district boards, 'district' includes the combined districts of such district boards and 'clerk' includes a clerk appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (9) of section (Amalgamation of district boards) of this Act to be clerk to a proposed amalgamated district board."
I put this clause before the Committee because I believe that it is a way in which everyone interested in the affairs of a river could have a reasonable say. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 4 [Powers of amalgamated boards etc.]:
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("amalgamated") and insert ("district")
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are drafting amendments.
Amendment No. 7: Page, line 37, leave out ("amalgamated") and insert ("district").
Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 4 leave out ("an amalgamated") and insert ("a district").
Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 42, leave out ("3") and insert ("Constitution of district boards).
These amendments suggest leaving out "amalgamated" and inserting "district". I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Viscount wish to take Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 en bloc?
Viscount Thurso: There seems to be little point in taking them en bloc. I do not intend to move them.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 not moved.]
The Marquess of Lansdownehad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) On application by a district board vary the provisions of section 13(1), (2) and (3) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 and in making an order the Secretary of State shall have discretion to fix the weekly close time either on a national basis or with variations for specific areas.")
The noble Marquess said: The position we have now reached in this discussion seems to me to be leading nowhere. I feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is to be congratulated on having introduced this Bill with all the imperfections that he knows it has. When I spoke on the Bill at Second Reading I gave it my support in principle. I still give it my support in principle.
I fear that it would be only honest to say that when I originally saw the Bill it seemed to me to be so imperfect as to be almost incapable of satisfactory amendment. The noble Viscount has had a good try; and, as I told the noble Viscount earlier today. I think his Bill is much improved from when we first saw it. I think the debate we had on Second Reading was valuable. A lot of points were discussed, and all these were noted by my noble friend the Minister. That in itself, of course, is valuable.
It seemed to me that as we had taken the Bill on to Committee stage it was only right that, wherever possible, I should make suggestions, amendments, that would perhaps improve the Bill further. I am inclined to think that they are there on the Marshalled List, but I do not wish to move any of my amendments.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
On Question, Clause 4 negatived.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso has given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Act of 1862.
(" . In section 18 of the Act of 1862 the words "and the last-mentioned proprietor shall be chairman of the board and shall have a deliberative as well as a casting vote" are hereby repealed.")
The noble Viscount said: It is clear to me that your Lordships do not wish to go on discussing this Bill. I do not wish to take up the time of your Lordships' Committee, and I am perfectly content simply not to move anything further if this is what everybody wants. That seems to be the general feeling of the Committee.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 22 not moved.]
Viscount Thurso: I am happy to move that the House do now resume, because it seems to me that nobody wishes to discuss this matter
any further.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at one minute before ten o'clock.

  MAGISTRATES: RECRUITMENT FROM ETHNIC MINORITIES
  MAGISTRATES: RECRUITMENT FROM ETHNIC MINORITIES
  NITRATE FILM STOCK
  NITRATE FILM STOCK
  GRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE: PUBLICATION
  GRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE: PUBLICATION
  OPEN UNIVERSITY: APPLICATION STATISTICS
  OPEN UNIVERSITY: APPLICATION STATISTICS
  HOLLOWAY PRISON: REPORT OF PROJECT COMMITTEE
  HOLLOWAY PRISON: REPORT OF PROJECT COMMITTEE
  LEAD POISONING OF SWANS: REPORT
  LEAD POISONING OF SWANS: REPORT
  ROMANIA: MINORITY RIGHTS
  ROMANIA: MINORITY RIGHTS
  ARMED FORCES PAY
  ARMED FORCES PAY
  GENEVA CONFERENCE: NUCLEAR TEST BAN
  GENEVA CONFERENCE: NUCLEAR TEST BAN
  MOD HQ: SERVICE OFFICER STRENGTHS
  MOD HQ: SERVICE OFFICER STRENGTHS