Sitting of 22 July 1985

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (TROWSE BRIDGE) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
  POOLE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Rail Services
    Mr. Snapeasked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to assume direct responsibility for section 20 rail services in the event of one or more constituent district councils declining to participate in joint board arrangements in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Bill.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): It will be for joint authority PTAs to decide what local rail services they want to support. District councils may apply to me to secede but, before giving my agreement, I would want to be satisfied that acceptable arrangements could be made for local rail services.
    Mr. Snape: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the February 1985 edition of Modern Railways, in an interview between the editor and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the latter was reported as saying that the district councils would not be allowed to secede with regard to section 20 arrangements? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a chat with his hon. Friend to resolve that difficulty? Does he agree that his hon. Friend's original view is much more sensible, because to try to operate such services is likely to be difficult, to say the least, if one constituent authority secedes?
    Mr. Ridley: I am always chatting with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chat with the editor, too, to make sure that it is even on both sides. We would not wish a district council to be able to get out of its obligations under section 20 by secession, but there could be cases in which there are no obligations lying on that particular district council. We must judge each case on its merits.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware of how much concern is being expressed by British Rail on this subject? It is not sure about its future, particularly in rail operations such as the Tyne and Wear metro. Will the
    706
    right hon. Gentleman give us an idea of the time scale, and at least guarantee that payments will be made until such time as the metropolitan authorities have disappeared and the district councils have taken over and are sure of their position?
    Mr. Ridley: There is no suggestion of changing section 20 grants, either now or after abolition comes into effect. It will be for the secessor authorties, in the form of joint boards, to consider whether they wish to continue with them. As long as they continue with them, the grants will remain backed up by the section 20 payments from the Government. Therefore, there is no immediate threat. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that secession itself will not take place until some time after abolition. Therefore, his fears need not be taken too seriously.
    Dr. Marek: Will the provision of local rail services go up or down as a result of the changes?
    Mr. Ridley: I am not in the business of making forecasts as to what local authorities will do. If I had been able to forecast what local authorities would do over the past six years, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would have got it terribly wrong, not believing that some of them could be so stupid.

    London Docklands
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on construction of the light railway in the London docklands.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The project is well up to schedule. We expect the railway to be in full operation by mid-1987—on time and within budget.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that this form of new infrastructure, taken together with the Government's proposals for the regeneration of the London docklands, is the best form of capital investment? Will she give an undertaking that, if and when application is made for more grants to complete stage 2 of this exciting new enterprise, the Government will consider such a proposal most sympathetically?
    Mrs. Chalker: I agree with my hon. Friend. The London Docklands Development Corporation, together with its partners, is doing an excellent job. I assure my hon. Friend that, although we have not yet received any proposal for a further stage of the docklands light railway, if such a proposal is received it will be given the best possible consideration.
    Mr. Cartwright: In view of the importance of providing good public transport links to the proposed STOLport in the Royal group of docks, will the Minister assure us that any proposal to extend the light railway to serve the STOLport will be favourably considered?
    Mrs. Chalker: That was the essence of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). I have received no such proposal, and therefore cannot know whether it will include an extension in the direction of the proposed STOLport. Any proposal for an extension will be carefully considered in the light of the important regeneration of docklands.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that what my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping

    707
    Barnet (Mr. Chapman) described as an exciting new venture will not lead to further delays on the Fenchurch street line?
    Mrs. Chalker: As an old habitué of the Fenchurch street line, I know exactly what my hon. Friend means. I shall certainly see what more can be done, in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, about the Fenchurch street line, on which so many people suffer.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: In the past the Minister has accepted that south-east London is under-served. As the light railway is only for north of the river, will the Minister give an assurance about the possible extension of the Bakerloo line, whether above or below ground, from Elephant and Castle, through Bricklayers Arms and South Bermondsey, to Surrey docks and, perhaps, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and Thamesmead, which will have the largest growing population in London in the next 10 years?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman paints a grandiose picture. I assure him that any sensible cost-effective proposal will be fully considered.

    Vehicle Excise Duty
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the effect of the campaign run by his Department to reduce motor vehicle licence evasion; and what is the latest estimate of the percentage of cars on the roads on which the appropriate licence duty has not been paid.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): Last year more than 290,000 vehicle excise duty evaders were prosecuted or settled out of court—10 per cent. more than in 1983. The number of offenders dealt with should be even higher this year as a result of further measures now being taken. The most recent survey of evasion estimated that about 3·5 per cent. of cars and light goods vehicles in use on the road are unlicensed.
    Mr. Taylor: Despite my hon. Friend's energetic efforts, the amount of evasion still imposes a horrendous loss on the Treasury. Has he closed his mind to the possibility of raising the revenue through additional tax on petrol? Is he satisfied that local authorities have adequate powers to remove untaxed cars from the roads?
    Mr. Spicer: We are certainly not complacent about the level of evasion, which, as my hon. Friend, who has taken a great deal of interest in the matter, said, results in about a £90 million loss of revenue. My hon. Friend made two suggestions. Changing to a different form of taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In changing the form of taxation many issues are at stake, one of which is clearly evasion. The Government have no plans to abolish VED now, and will do so only if the benefits from it are greater than the disadvantages. In regard to the suggestion to strengthen local authorities' powers to tow away unlicensed vehicles, such as they have in the case of abandoned vehicles, I point out that there are many practical difficulties. For example, in some cases the licence disc has merely fallen from the windscreen. However, we have not ruled out all possibilities of some form of controlled impounding.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that many of us recall the former Labour Member, Mr. Arthur Lewis challenging the Secretary of State's predecessors to go out with him on to the streets of London where he would demonstrate that more than one third of the licences were out of date? Without casting any aspersions on Londoners as against other United Kingdom citizens, does that not show evasion of that taxation on a massive scale? What does the Minister intend to do to correct that?
    Mr. Spicer: The problem is not exclusive to London. We are glad that the Bill, which is strengthing the Government's powers in Scotland and allows for evasion to be prosecuted with only one witness, is now before the other place. It is a national problem and we are dealing with it nationally.
    Mr. Eggar: Since evasion is a matter for my hon. Friend, should he not urge the Treasury to replace VED by extra tax on petrol?
    Mr. Spicer: There are conflicting views about whether VED should be replaced by a different form of taxation. There are arguments for and against it, as my Department recognises.

    National Bus Company
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the National Bus Company; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): My right hon. Friend and I frequently meet the chairman of the NBC, when we discuss a number of subjects of mutual interest.
    Mr. Pike: When Ministers met the chairman, did they consider the NBC's withdrawal from the National Council for the Omnibus Industry, which has stood the test of time since 1947? Does he recognise that that withdrawal has caused considerable industrial unrest in the industry and tends to prove what many Opposition Members have been saying: that, to make the Transport Bill work, the Government will deregulate the working conditions of employees in that industry?
    Mr. Mitchell: That is entirely a matter for the management of the industry. It is not for the Government to interfere, and we were not responsible for asking the NBC to take this step.
    Mr. Rathbone: In his discussions with the chairman, has my hon. Friend mentioned the future of British Transport Advertising? He will be aware that many people in the poster industry are keen that that organisation should be run more competitively, and would be only too willing to assist in so doing?
    Mr. Mitchell: I have discussed this matter with the chairman of the NBC and with representatives of British Rail. Discussions are continuing on the possibility of a management buy-out, and I do not wish to say anything further now.
    Mr. Stott: The Minister will be aware of the great anxiety felt by NBC employees about their pension rights. He will also be aware that his long and detailed answers to amendments which were tabled by me and by my hon. Friends in Committee have in no way assuaged their anxiety. It is time that the Minister reconsidered the

    709
    matter. Does he accept that there is still time to recognise the genuine concerns of those employees, whose pension rights are being put at risk by his Bill? As a consequence of that, is he now prepared to amend the Bill in the other place to meet their legitimate demands?
    Mr. Mitchell: The National Bus Company asked for a Government guarantee in respect of the pension funds, but the company does not provide such a guarantee, only a renounceable covenant. A renounceable covenant cannot be equated with a Government guarantee, or even an NBC guarantee. However, with the chairman of the NBC, we have been considering ways of ensuring the continuation of those pension rights even more than we do now. One option is for an insurance company to take over the fund. Those discussions are continuing, and I do not wish to prejudice them by going further.

    Driving Test
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to revise the motoring skills tested in the driving test.
    Mrs. Chalker: This morning my right hon. Friend informed the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport of our response to his report on road safety, I hope that he has received it. As I have been asked this direct question, I should tell the House that my right lion. Friend has said that he is unable to accept the Committee's proposals for an extended driving test.
    Mr. Bruinvels: On behalf of all hon. Members, may I say that that reply is unsatisfactory, bearing in mind the fact that some people who drive cars risk their lives and those of others after only half an hour of instruction and a driving test? Does she agree that night-time driving and driving at speed—possibly on dual carriageways or even on some motorways—should be added to the driving test? Does she accept that it is no good instructing examiners in new rules about how to examine people's driving and then to forget the essential fact that those people must be properly trained to drive?
    Mrs. Chalker: I must ask my hon. Friend to consider the practicalities of the matter and to study it in some detail. In summer, it is not feasible to train people or test them in night driving. In winter, it would require massive examiner overtime and would involve a higher fee for the person taking the driving test. As for dual carriageway driving, I should tell my hon. Friend that fewer than half the network of test centres are within reach of dual carriageways, and even fewer are within reach of motorways. We should consider the response more fully before we go any further.
    Mr. Bagier: I thank the hon. Lady for her attempts to get the report to me on time. I have not had time to look at it. There will be some disappointment in the Committee that she has not been able to accept its recommendations. Is she aware that the safety aspect of driving examiners' tests was one of the main considerations to which the Committee gave its thoughts? In that connection, is she satisfied with the quality of driving school instructors, who at present are not seen to be subject to the scrutiny to which they ought to be subject?
    Mrs. Chalker: I have been seeking contact with the hon. Gentleman all morning, and I am sorry that he has
    710
    only just received the response from my right hon. Friend. I fully agree with him about the importance of safety and agree with many of the things that his Committee said in the report. I also agree that we need to improve the quality of driving instruction. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) brought in a Bill, which is now an Act, which is helping us to improve driving instruction. The requirements placed on driving instructors will improve instruction, and that will improve further the standard of driving on the roads.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I assure the Minister that any improvement in driving instruction will be welcomed. What is the Minister doing about shortening the waiting time for a driving test? There is an interminable delay before tests can take place, and the queue is growing longer. What is the Minister doing to speed things up?
    Mrs. Chalker: We have been undertaking substantial recruitment to increase the number of driving examiners. Since 1984, 172 driving examiners have been recruited, and that gives us a net gain, taking into account retirements and those leaving, of 65. On all the best forecasts, we should have 1·85 million tests per annum. The actual turnout in 1984–85 was 1·94 million and we lost more than three weeks of full testing last winter because of the weather. We are recruiting as fast as we can in order to cut the waiting time.

    Bus Services
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Transport what changes to the Transport Bill 1985 he intends to propose following the Government response to the Transport Committee "Report on Buses".
    Mr. Ridley: We have put forward a number of amendments to the Bill since the publication of the Transport Committee's report, including two points identified by the Committee: powers to enable local authorities to require operators to participate in concessionary fares schemes, and provisions to ensure that control over bus stations is not used to secure an unfair advantage in the provision of local bus services.
    Mr. Hughes: Does that answer not show that the Minister is still suffering from the twin viruses of arrogance and contempt? The proposals which he has put forward do not begin to match up to the 15 specific recommendations of the Select Committee. Was it not nonsense for the Minister and his Department to proceed with the Bill before the Select Committee reported and then to ignore its recommendations except in two respects?
    Mr. Ridley: Far from ignoring the recommendations of the Select Committee, I have disagreed with them. The hon. Gentleman will know that we published a White Paper in response to the Select Committee. In it we argued against the system of competitive franchising which the Committee, rather half-heartedly, proposed, and we put forward cogent reasons why that was not the right thing to do.

    London Regional Transport
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress being made by London Regional Transport towards reducing costs and improving services.
    Mr. Ridley: I am pleased to say that substantial progress is being made. As I reported in answer to my hon. Friend's question on 18 July, LRT expects to reduce unit costs by more than 2·5 per cent. in real terms in its first year. This is on top of substantial cost savings made during 1984–85 and puts LRT on course towards achieving its objective of halving revenue support between 1984–85 and 1987–88. LRT's initial trial of competitive tendering for bus services yielded cost savings of nearly 20 per cent., while mileage operated on the routes concerned will go up.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate LRT on its excellent first year of management and join me in deploring the GLC's putting up of further ratepayers' and taxpayers' money to its sidekick organisation Capital so that it might attack LRT? Will he also assure the House that fares will be kept at or below the level of inflation, a situation which will contrast strongly with the GLC's efforts in 1981, when it doubled fares?
    Mr. Ridley: It is strange that my hon. Friend should refer to Capital. I have before me the leaflet which it published when the Bill was going through the House. It says that the Bill
    "will mean fares having to go up by at least 25 per cent. and the probable end of the line for at least 33 stations and 34 bus routes."
    Can we expect an apology from the GLC and from Capital admitting that that was scandalous scaremongering and that it has not happened?
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State say when he expects the policies of London Regional Transport to be as successful as those of London Transport under the GLC's "Fares Fair" policy? When does the right hon. Gentleman expect present policies to result in a 12 per cent. increased usage of buses and an 8 per cent. increased usage of the tube, and a reduction in the number of commuter cars coming into London?
    Mr. Ridley: It has been a great success story. The GLC expected to increase revenue support to £245 million by 1987–88, whereas we are on target to achieving revenue support of only £95 million by that year. That shows the immense savings which have been made for the benefit of the taxpayer and not to the detriment of the passenger.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I realise that the Secretary of State is not a frequent user of London's buses. Is he able to explain his definition of "efficiency", given that during the past 12 months one third of all London's bus routes have been cut or withdrawn? Will he also say whether, if London Regional Transport is able to make an operating surplus because of these cuts during the financial year, that will be used to reduce the precept or the fares?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of not being a frequent user of the buses, but I accuse him of not bothering to turn up when most London Members go to get a proper briefing on these facts from London Regional Transport itself. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to discover the facts from London Regional Transport this morning, he would have discovered that the increase in efficiency is even better than I predicted in Committee, and, further, that there has not been this one third reduction in bus routes but that there has been a plan only to reduce route mileage by 2 per cent., which is rather different from 33 per cent. That is the normal margin of error in the figures of the GLC, of which the hon. Gentleman has the dubious distinction of being chairman.

    Road Traffic (London)
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the incidence of congestion attributable to coach traffic on roads in London for which he has responsibility.
    Mrs. Chalker: The main problems of coach congestion in London are not on trunk roads but in the sensitive central area, where there is a shortage of proper parking space. I have impressed on the GLC the importance of tackling this effectively, and I am seeking to ensure that urgent action is taken for summer 1986.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that this building particularly is surrounded by roads filled with lawbreaking tourist coaches? Does she recognise especially that Westminster bridge, particularly on the west side where glaringly obvious yellow -No Parking" lines are painted, is cluttered from one side to the other with coaches, ice cream vans and the rest, to the enormous cost and inconvenience of the travelling public? What does her Department intend to do about it?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am aware of and share much of the concern about coach parking in London. It is a major problem, caused really when tourists arrive in London and their drivers have to park their coaches. Although we welcome the £10 billion that tourism brings, we have to take action. It is for the GLC to identify proper stopping and parking places on and off street. It is also important for the GLC to get on with doing that as quickly as possible. The Department has sought to help the GLC in a number of ways, and we shall be having further discussions this week. With other Government Departments, for the forthcoming season we are examining available land on which to park coaches when they have dropped their passengers.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite wrong that the law should not be enforced? Will she therefore have urgent discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to ensure either that the parking restrictions are removed or that the police take action against those who break the law?
    Mrs. Chalker: As my right hon. Friend knows, law enforcement is not a matter for me. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, rather than deterring those who bring important resources to this country, I believe that the Government, with the GLC, must find places for these coaches.
    Mr. Dobson: The Government are abolishing the GLC.
    Mrs. Chalker: It will remain responsible for the next eight months for parking in London. We must find a solution to the problem, which is growing even worse because of the influx of foreign tourists.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are the Government helping British Rail with its imaginative scheme for parkways at places such as Iver? Could not British Rail also be provided with help in re-routeing trains from Scotland and the north through Willesden junction to the south coast?
    Mrs. Chalker: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's question, that is not a matter for me. We encourage park and ride schemes where they can

    713
    reasonably be accommodated. Additional park and ride schemes are being investigated, but they will not cope with the many tourist coaches that come to London bringing people to stay in London or to visit the many places of interest in the capital.
    Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware of the prehistoric arrangements at Victoria bus station? Does she agree that for such conditions to exist in a tourist centre like London is completely unacceptable? Will she get the National Bus Company to sort it out immediately?
    Mrs. Chalker: Given the amount of traffic that wishes to come to this area, somebody ought to think up an imaginative scheme for bus garaging, and I sincerely hope that that will happen. The National Bus Company has a problem not only with its own coaches but with other coaches in the area. We are well aware of the grave concern in Westminster. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I will be meeting the leader of Westminster city council this week about the matter.

    Heavy Commercial Road Traffic
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward further proposals to restrict heavy commercial traffic to particular routes in rural areas.
    Mrs. Chalker: County councils already have a variety of powers to handle heavy commercial traffic in ways appropriate for each locality, including rural areas.
    Mr. Baker: From the Dispatch Box, will my hon. Friend enourage county councils to use their powers to introduce road humps or to direct commercial traffic by one route rather than another? Far too many commercial vehicles are still going down rural roads which were not built to take them.
    Mrs. Chalker: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's question and refer him to paragraph 36 of the transport policy and programme circular of January 1985, where he will see that authorities are again urged to undertake work to alleviate the nuisance caused by lorries in residential areas. The circular shows just how that work can be done and also explains what has already been done in certain rural areas.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister accept that the statement by the Central Electricity Generating Board that it is moving a large amount of its coal traffic from rail to road will be unacceptable to highway authorities, and that environmentally such a move is very undesirable?
    Mrs. Chalker: I do not think that I have read the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but every local authority has the power to introduce sensible lorry controls. We are making further progress on lorry management by means of a joint project with the Civic Trust and three county councils to ensure the more economic functioning of lorries by means of low-cost measures. At the same time, we must establish a better understanding of how to keep lorries away from residential and rural areas where they do not need to go.
    Mr. Adley: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), will my hon. Friend please
    714
    take on board the fact that some county councils are not using powers with which the House has provided them, be they for road humps or weight restrictions? For example, will my hon. Friend look at the road that passes through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North from Ashby Heath to Shaftesbury? It is a classic example of a road that is used by a great deal of heavy traffic. The county council says that it is unsuitable for any of these restrictions, but it is patently just the sort of road that should be subject to those restrictions.
    Mrs. Chalker: I should need prior knowledge of a road if I were to comment in the detail suggested by my hon. Friend. There have been initiatives on local lorry controls which can be implemented. I am sure that he will be encouraging his county council to restrict or, where necessare, ban lorries from roads with amenity problems. I think that that is the angle that my hon. Friend is getting at.
    Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Lady commend to rural authorities the sorts of solutions adopted by the GLC in restricting heavy goods vehicles? Will she bear in mind that the Secretary of State, having been denounced once again for acting "improperly, unlawfully and irrationally-, now has more form than the Kray brothers?
    Mrs. Chalker: The answer to the first question is no. The second matter is sub judice.

    London Regional Trasnport
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss his proposals for improving the quality of bus services in London.
    Mr. Ridley: I meet the chairman of London Regional Transport at frequent intervals and our discussions cover a wide range of topics. LRT is taking positive steps to improve the quality of the bus services it provides, in accordance with the objectives it has been sent.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept the LRT view that the main threat to the quality of bus services in London comes from a combination of almost perpetual road works and the blocking of main roads by parked vehicles? If so, what encouragement can he give LRT that there will be any improvement of those problems in the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Ridley: I know that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there has been a deterioration of the service along the Rochester way relief road. I understand from LRT that the road works, which are being carried out by the GLC, are causing the problem. If the hon. Gentleman likes to raise the matter with the GLC, he may get an explanation of why that service in not functioning well.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this year I have had fewer complaints about buses than ever before?
    Mr. Corbett: There are fewer buses, that is why.
    Mr. Ridley: I hope that my hon. Friend will find that he has fewer complaints still next year.

    M1 Repairs
    Mr. David Madelasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the progress of the major repairs to the M1 south of Bedfordshire, which started on 2 July; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes, the critical phase of the work was completed on 11 July, five days ahead of schedule, and there was little disruption to traffic either on the motorway itself or in the surrounding area during the works.
    Mr. Madel: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great appreciation in my constituency of the speed with which the employees of Balfour Beatty completed the work and the co-operation between her Department and the contractors? When further motorway repairs are necessary, will my hon. Friend ensure that there is another effective publicity campaign by her Department warning drivers of the need to take alternative routes, because that helped this time?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said and for the excellent co-operation between all concerned in completing the work early.
    We had to take special publicity measures in this case because of the very heavy loading of 120,000 vehicles per day on this stretch of the M1. Should repairs be needed on any other stretch of motorway that has such a heavy loading—only one is more heavily loaded—we shall consider such publicity measures. In general, if the public heed the lessons learnt from this example, I am sure that we shall be completing other schemes not only early, but without accident, which is important.
    Mr. Stott: Will the Minister say whether it is normal practice for her Department to pay what can only be described as very large sums of public money to contractors who finish a job before time or on time?
    Mrs. Chalker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that we have started a system of lane rental, with the objective of saving costs to industry. That means that if contractors finish repair works early they get a bonus, but if they finish late they pay the Department a levy for each day over the target time. The company earned a substantial bonus, but industry is the net beneficiary by about £500,000 because that job was finished five days early. It was certainly worth the bonus which the company received.

    London Regional Transport
    Dr. Twinnasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the progress towards the objectives set by the Government for the management of London Regional Transport in 1984.
    Mr. Ridley: I refer my hon Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) earlier today.
    Dr. Twinn: What initiatives have resulted from the increase in co-operation between LRT and BR?
    Mr. Ridley: We have made considerable progress with the new capitalcard, with plans for improving interchanges between BR and LRT stations and with bringing together the standards for station maintenance and investment
    716
    appraisal which the two organisations have performed differently. My hon. Friend will find that the benefits from the meetings will flow quickly.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Hyde Park (Speakers' Corner)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Attorney-General if the Director of Public Prosecutions is currently considering prosecutions against any persons alleged to have been responsible for persistent obstruction or abuse of speakers at Hyde park, London.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Earlier this year the Metropolitan police sought the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the institution of proceedings under the Public Meeting Act 1908 against persons responsible for disruption of proceedings at Speakers' Corner. The director took the view that these traditional gatherings which are not called together to transact business fell outside the scope of the 1908 Act. I agreed with that view and have invited the Home Secretary to consider the problems raised by this case. The police have since been provided with legal advice about their powers under the Royal and other Parks and Gardens Regulations 1977 and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment are monitoring the situation to see whether the provisions are sufficient to deal with the mischief.
    Mr. Winnick: The Speakers' Corner is visited by many people from outside London. I note the Attorney-General's remarks, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that further action is needed to deal with those who persistently try to obstruct free speech by abuse and obscenities? Is he further aware that according to a report in The London Standard three weeks ago, one of the main offenders is the political secretary of the Kensington young conservatives? Is this not yet another illustration of the extremist element in the Tory party being determined to stop free speech?
    The Attorney-General: Another of the bad hecklers is a Marxist, so the problem is fairly wide-ranging. Last Sunday the tougher approach by the police under the regulations was put into effect and two well-known hecklers, who have been behaving very badly indeed—not just obstructing, but seeking to bring meetings to an end—were told that they had to leave. They left quietly. The phrase that the chief inspector used was that it "worked like a charm."
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I commend what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but is he aware that when I spoke on a young conservative platform at Speakers' Corner I was constantly subjected to abuse and obscenities but that I never complained to anyone?
    The Attorney-General: The distinction is between ordinary heckling, which is part of the "fun", and heckling by a group of people scattered round the audience whose intention is to disrupt and bring the meeting to an end. That cannot be tolerated.

    Duty Solicitor Scheme
    Mr. Dubsasked the Attorney-General whether those who attend police stations voluntarily and the friends

    717
    and relatives of those held by the police under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will have access to the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The 1984 Act provides for those attending police stations voluntarily to be covered by the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme. The Lord Chancellor plans to make an announcement about the scheme very shortly.
    Mr. Dubs: The Minister's answer is welcome in relation to those attending voluntarily, but may I press him further about the friends and relatives of those who have been either arrested or who are attending voluntarily? Would it not be helpful to the police and the accused if the scheme were extended to include those people?
    The Solicitor-General: I undertake to ensure that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor takes note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I cannot say more than that today.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Solicitor-General agree that for this scheme to work properly it is necessary for a duty solicitor, when in attendance at a police station, to inspect the detained person's book. thus allowing him to verify who is or is not detained at the police station at that time?
    The Solicitor-General: There are many detailed matters to be considered in the implementation of the scheme and they are the subject of current consultation and consideration.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Solicitor-General tell the House about the remuneration of solicitors under the scheme? In particular, in order to attract the very highest calibre of solicitors, do the Government intend to give solicitors a pay rise in line with that proposed for the Lord Chancellor?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of forgetting that the Act under which the scheme will be introduced has for the first time brought police powers to detain without charge under a statutory absolute limitation and under judicial control. Those are great advances, and no Labour Home Secretary introduced a Bill to bring them about.
    We certainly wish to ensure that the scheme provides maximum protection. We have difficult decisions to make, and we are in the middle of doing that.

    Solicitors (Complaints)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the recommendations of the Coopers and Lybrand report concerning complaints against solicitors.
    The Attorney-General: The Law Society has now published the exposure draft of the report, together with a report of its steering committee and a statement by the council, as the basis for consultation. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will await the outcome of that consultation.
    Mr. Maclennan: Do the Government accept the central recommendation that it would be desirable to have a single entry point for those with complaints against solicitors, and that the complaints should be made to a board independent of the Law Society?
    The Attorney-General: We are awaiting the results of the consultation paper. We are concerned to maintain the independence of the profession, but we are equally clear that the public must be confident that complaints against solicitors are dealt with effectively. The Government have a completely open mind on the principle of an independent body.
    Mr. John David Taylor: As there is even greater concern in Northern Ireland about misappropriation by members of the Law Society in the Province, will the Attorney-General ensure that his study extends to the solicitors' profession throughout the whole of the United Kingdom?
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance, but I shall ensure that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is made aware of the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties.

    Latent Damage
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received concerning the introduction of legislation concerning latent damage.
    The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any recent representations on this subject, but representations were made on 16 July 1985 on behalf of the construction industry to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is great concern in all parts of the construction industry about the recommendations in the report of the Law Reform Committee? If the Government are minded to recommend putting on the statute book the recommendations in the report, will he give an assurance that he will consult the construction industry? This affects not only architects and builders who are concerned about the law relating to length of liability and latent defects, but local authorities and owners of buildings. Every section needs a satisfactory conclusion to these problems.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend assiduously represents an industry and its problems which he knows well. He knows that on 18 June my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor stated that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee. When my hon. Friend last asked me this question on 13 May, I said that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor would be very willing to see anybody from the industry who wished to consult him further, but that substantial consultation had already taken place. However, I certainly reaffirm the undertaking that I gave on behalf of my noble Friend.

    Prevention of Corruption Act (Newspapers)
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Attorney-General on how many occasions the Prevention of Corruption Act has been used against a newspaper: and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: The relevant records do not distinguish between defendants by reference to their occupation or business. One prosecution of a newspaper company for corruption is at present pending, but I know of no previous cases of that kind.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that when a newspaper exposes gross extravagance and waste in a Government Department such as the Ministry of Defence, it would be preferable and cheaper to eliminate the waste rather than take that newspaper to court?
    The Attorney-General: The essence of the offence of corruption is the use of financial or other inducement to a person to subvert his loyalty to his principal, whether in the public or private sector. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's question, the means, not the end, is objectionable.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Philippines
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of overseas aid to the Philippines.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): In 1984 we provided £225,000 under our technical co-operation programme and £32,000 in loan disbursements under the aid and trade provision. Commonwealth Development Corporation loan disbursements totalled £3·55 million.
    Mr. Clarke: Given that in 1983, 80 per cent. of the money available to the Philippines was spent on the Guthrie project, Mindanao, which turned out to be somewhat notorious in terms of abuses of human rights, land grabbing and so on, is the Minister watching carefully how the money is spent? May we be assured that no further such abuses have occurred?
    Mr. Raison: We are watching carefully the progress of the project, about which, I appreciate, there have been difficulties. On the other hand, the latest reports show that it has brought considerable benefits, including a large increase in employment, an improvement in medical services, water and power supplies and, in other ways, has added to the prosperity of the area.
    Mr. John David Taylor: When were the last democratic elections held in the Philippines, and when are the next expected to be held?
    Mr. Raison: That does not arise on this question.

    Sudan
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the latest details of assistance with food transportation given by European Community countries to Sudan.
    Mr. Raison: We have provided over £3 million for the purchase of 100 trucks and the hire of 50 others, as well as the costs of a Save the Children Fund logistics team in western Sudan. Together with Belgium, Denmark, West Germany and the Community, we are participating in the airlift to western Sudan. In addition, we understand that both West Germany and Italy are providing trucks, and the Community, as well as helping to finance the airlift, is paying for truck hire and supporting the food aid block train scheme.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of reports coming out of the Sudan to the effect that the Sudanese authorities are blocking even offers of assistance
    720
    to improve and, where necessary. restore the railway line link to the west? Will the maximum possible diplomatic pressure be put on the Sudanese Government by the British Government to make sure that the Sudanese accept such offers as are appropriate? What is to be the future of the ODA-sponsored Hercules aircraft?
    Mr. Raison: I am extremely concerned about the railway link to the west. It is absolutely essential for the Sudanese to play their part in allowing the food trains to operate effectively, and we have made our views clear. The Hercules which we are sponsoring is due to carry on until the end of the month, and we shall continue it after that as the need continues.
    Mr. Lester: I am pleased to learn from my right hon. Friend about the scale of the support in transport and trucks. What is the time scale between the declaring of support and the arrival of that support in the area, and the ability of such support to operate in the rainy season, especially in Darfur?
    Mr. Raison: Is my hon. Friend referring to aircraft or general support?
    Mr. Lester: I was referring to lorries.
    Mr. Raison: Lorries can operate, although the rains make progress difficult. I regret the problems that have occurred with the railway, which make it all the more important that the lorries should operate effectively.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for what he has said about the money that has been made available for the Save the Children Fund. I ask him to give the House a commitment that the Hercules will remain in service for as long as they are needed?
    Mr. Raison: There is one Hercules in Sudan as opposed to Ethiopia. I expect that Hercules to continue in operation after the end of the month while the need is there.
    Mr. Cash: Will the Crown Agents be able to give some assistance in alleviating the rail problems in Sudan in the way in which they have been able to give such assistance over the past 100 years?
    Mr. Raison: I think that it is possible that they might. The British Railways Board might also be able to assist. We have provided an expert consultant, who has been of great value in this respect. I have authorised the expenditure of £50,000 to provide radio communications and I have made it clear throughout that I attach enormous importance to the railway link. I shall take every constructive action that I can to help maintain it.

    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development; and what proportion of United Kingdom bilateral aid is given for similar purposes.
    Mr. Raison: The United Kingdom contributed £18 million to the initial funding and £12·9 million to the first replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. In 1984, approximately 19 per cent. of United Kingdom bilateral aid was spent on renewable natural resources and related activities.
    Mr. Deakins: In view of the importance of combating hunger, especially in Africa, over the next 20 or 30 years, will the Minister assure the House that an increasing proportion of our bilateral aid will go to long-term agricultural development in that unhappy continent?
    Mr. Raison: I am anxious that a good proportion of our bilateral aid should go to agricultural development. Of all the aid of that sort that we give, that which takes the form of technical co-operation, training and expert advice is possibly the most important. It is not the most expensive aid and it is badly needed. I shall do all that I can to provide it.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend consider making representations to Mr. Geldof and the organisers of Live Aid to give some of the money that they have collected to the IFAD and other important international organisations which my right hon. Friend has been unable to fund as he would like through the ODA?
    Mr. Raison: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. By and large, Mr. Geldof likes to go his own way rather than working through the Government. I suggest that my hon. Friend makes some representations. I am sure that his suggestion is well worth considering.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister agree that the huge commitment to repaying the interest on debt has a debilitating effect on recipient African states and aid to Africa generally? What does the right hon. Gentleman say about the comments of the Secretary of State for Energy about the possibility of waiving interest payments?
    Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman should realise that we have remitted the aid debts of all the poorest countries. The latest countries with which I agreed to take this course were Ethiopia and Ghana. It is our general policy not to charge aid debts to the poorest countries. We give rather than lend.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that where he is satisfied that the most efficient instrument for aid can be a registered charity, such as Oxfam, that will be used as a channel for public funds so as to provide effective help, rather than operating on a Government-to-Government basis, where much more may be lost in administrative expense.
    Mr. Raison: Much of our relief aid is channelled through the voluntary agencies. Over the past two years I have doubled the money that is made available to the voluntary agencies through the joint funding scheme.

    Indian Subcontinent
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives the Overseas Development Administration, in co-operation with the British Council, has taken since June 1983 to extend the administration of education aid in the Indian subcontinent.
    Mr. Raison: In co-operation with the British Council we have extended our technical co-operation education programmes in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh over the period in question. We have not however altered the administrative system.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Government's policy begin to offset the loss of opportunity for those from the subcontinent in higher and further education in Britain following the sharp increases in overseas student fees?
    Mr. Raison: We have financed an increasing quantity of man-hours of training in Britain, which is of great value to those from overseas, and we have extended our scholarship schemes. I announced the addition of a new scholarship scheme only a few weeks ago.
    Mr. Janner: Has the Mir-Ester had the opportunity to discuss this matter, and aid to India generally, with the Indian Foreign Secretary, Romesh Bhandari, who is presently in the United Kingdom? Is the Minister satisfied that the aid programme is contributing substantially to the improvement of relations between Britain and India, which has recently been most welcome and marked?
    Mr. Raison: I have not discussed relations with Mr. Bhandari in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman has asked, but we have close contact with Indian officials and I have no doubt that our aid programme is a vital part in our good relationship with India.

    Agricultural Reform
    Mr. Stuart Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to promote and sustain agricultural reform programmes in developing countries.
    Mr. Raison: We promote and sustain the improvement of agriculture in developing countries through a wide range of measures. While reform through changes in policy, for example on producer prices and marketing, must ultimately be a matter for the domestic Government, in our discussions with Governments we stress the importance of policies likely to encourage food production.
    Mr. Holland: The Minister will be aware that getting aid to the poorest people in the poorest countries is particlarly relevant in agricultural development, which is an important part of the general debate on drought, aid and famine. The right hon. Gentleman has been foremost in the EEC in pressing for many things, but will he be foremost in pressing for the implementation of the Lom é proposals on agricultural development?
    Mr. Raison: I shall be foremost in pressing on the EEC the importance to be attached to agricultural work in general, and I include in that small-scale agricultural work, which is of great importance.
    Sir Peter Blaker: What study has my right hon. Friend made of the extent to which famine, and consquently drought, in developing countries is a consequence of deforestation? Has he any programmes to assist afforestation in those countries?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right. Deforestation is a major problem. One of the objectives of the Lomé convention is to tackle that problem, and my Department supports a number of valuable forestry schemes.

Emergency Procedures
3.31 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of questions?
Mr. Wigley: It concerns a private notice question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not discuss that.
Mr. Wigley: Is it not possible to raise a point of order on the procedure relating to private notice questions?
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member knows the rules on that matter.
Mr. Wigley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been here a good many years and he must know that no point of order can arise out of that matter. He will have to find other ways to raise the issue that he has in mind.
Mr. Wigley: It is a point of order on a procedural matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take such points of order after the statement.

Ethiopia (Famine Relief)
3.32 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement on the relief of the Ethiopian famine. I visited Ethiopia from 16 to 19 July to assess the current famine and the need for further relief there. I revisited the feeding centres at Korem, which I saw last November, spent half a day at Assab port, went on an airdrop operation in an RAF Hercules. and had discussions with Ethiopian Ministers, the United Nations Coordinator, Mr. Kurt Jansson, the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner, and representatives of international and voluntary agencies.
The international relief effort, in which both the British Government and the British people have played an important part, has alleviated much of the worst suffering which we saw on our television screens in the latter part of 1984. Rain is now falling in many parts of Ethiopia, some crops have been planted, and livestock is beginning to recover. However, there are still large areas, notably Wollo and parts of Tigré and Eritrea, where the rains have been only intermittent or have yet to come at all. It will be several weeks before any reliable assessment of the probable 1985 harvest can be made. It will be several months before that harvest can be gathered. All to whom I spoke in Ethiopia agreed that even with the most favourable rains this year's harvest will be well below that of a normal year. It is essential, therefore. that the relief efforts are maintained into 1986.
What are the immediate priorities? The United Nations Co-ordinator estimates that with current stocks in Ethiopia and firm pledges of further deliveries, the overall food supply should be adequate for the rest of this year. At Assab, I saw the considerable flow of European Community food aid into Ethiopia—three ships were unloading food grain from the Community. Effective use is being made of the dumper trucks, grain conveyors and tarpaulins that we have provided and we shall be sending, in the next few days, a further supply of tarpaulins for use at Massawa and on relief trucks.
The overriding priority now is to improve food distribution. There are still not enough trucks available. The situation should soon improve significantly with the arrival of trucks pledged earlier. The United Nations Coordinator's assessment is that perhaps another 400 long-haul and short-haul trucks will still be required. It is of course essential that the Ethiopian Government make available all the trucks that they can.
As the House is aware, our major contribution to food distribution in Ethiopia has been the provision since 3 November last year of two RAF Hercules aircraft and their accompanying detachment, including a team from the Royal Corps of Transport. This operation has now airlifted well over 12,600 tonnes of grain and dropped a further 7,000 tonnes to places inaccessible by any other means of transport. It is an operation which, as I have seen for myself, calls for the highest professional skills and cool courage. It is admired by everyone in Ethiopia.
As I told the House last Monday, one of the purposes of my visit to Ethiopia was to judge whether we should maintain the decision that I announced on 10 June to withdraw our aircraft by 30 September. We had expected then that, by 30 September, the ending of the rains and the

725
build-up of trucks would enable food to be distributed more widely and efficiently by road. My visit has confirmed that road remains the most cost-effective way of moving large quantities of grain, but the build up of road transport has gone more slowly than expected. Areas inaccessible by road will continue to depend on food brought from outside until their own harvest is in, as we all hope it will be, at the end of the year. The Hercules also provide a much valued flexibility.
We have now been able to weigh up carefully the future of the Hercules operation, and to discuss it fully with the Ethiopian Government—who asked us to extend it—with the United Nations Co-ordinator and with other relief agencies. We have concluded that the aircraft will continue to be needed until the end of the year. We are therefore conveying to the Ethiopian Government our offer to keep the two aircraft and accompanying detachment on relief operations until the latter part of December.
This new commitment, together with the further 10,000 tonnes of food aid which we shall send when the ports are ready to handle it, demonstates the Government's continuing concern for the victims of the Ethiopian drought. Our contribution has been prompt—we helped the Save the Children Fund with its feeding centre in Korem early in 1983. It has been generous—£70 million of emergency aid since 1982—and it has been sustained. We shall continue to do all that we can.
Mr. Stuart Holland: The British and international public have responded magnificently to the Live Aid appeal and shown by their compassion and concern that they care about drought and famine. The Minister has just been in and out of Ethiopia. We know why he went, why he came back and why he made a statement today. It is substantially to follow the impact of the Live Aid appeal and to disguise the fact that the Government have failed to take key measures, having been warned about the drought in Ethiopia and Sudan time and again.
We warned in the spring of last year that there would be a tragedy of biblical proportions in that area unless the Government took pre-emptive action. They failed to take such action. The Minister told us that he went to Assab and Massawa, but the ports are the source of the problem. Food aid distribution is the key issue, as we have warned time and again. The trucks which the right hon. Gentleman has scheduled have not yet arrived, although we have warned time and again that trucks of that capacity are needed. We also warned that unless they were there earlier, many farming families would leave the land, go to drought and refugee centres and aggravate the problems.
We warned that there was not enough fuel in the Sudan. The Minister talks now as though the transport problem has only just occurred. We challenged the Government to match the real fuel needs in the Sudan and to send a tanker of fuel to Port Sudan so that the Sudanese could cope, not least with the problem caused by refugees from Eritrea and Tigré. We pressed the Government to put pressure on the Dergue Administration in Addis Ababa to call for safe passage for food aid. The Minister had nothing to say about the representations which he may or may not have made about that.
We are glad to hear the Minister's announcement that the Hercules programme will continue after September. So it should. A Government who say that they are anxious about
726
cost-effectiveness, as the Minister did in his statement, will realise that the cost-effectiveness of providing food aid by Hercules is substantially greater than providing it by road transport, and massively more than providing it by rail transport. In, for example, the Sudan—
Sir John Biggs-Davision: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: We do not normally have points of order in the middle of statements.
Sir John Biggs-Davision: Has there been a change in our procedure? Do we have a ministerial statement followed by an Opposition statement, or do we have a ministerial statement followed by questions from Members of the House?
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows that the Front Bench has a certain discretion. However, Front Bench Members are given the opportunity to rise in order to ask questions.
Mr. Holland: Will the Minister confirm that the Hercules will only supplement the food aid which, by road and rail transport, should have reached the drought areas already, and that the contributions that can be made—sadly, and despite the magnificent role played by the RAF—is likely to be marginal? The fact is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Questions."] Will the Minister confirm that he should have led the Live Aid response rather than followed it, and that he should have matched Live Aid and Band Aid pound for pound with net resources rather than shuffle the aid budget? Tragically, the contribution that is now being made by the Hercules alone is like crumbs from the table which will be out of the reach of many of those who are now suffering because of the culpable delays of the Government in recent months.
Mr. Raison: Frankly, I think that the hon. Gentleman's harangue is largely synthetic in its content. The Leader of the Opposition, who is now in Ethiopia, has apparently shown much more appreciation of what we are doing than has his henchman.
There is absolutely no doubt that we have made a major contribution towards the handling of traffic through the ports. Before the current crisis, we played a big part in improving the facilities in Port Sudan. In the port of Assab, as I have seen for myself, our conveyors, dumper trucks, tarpaulins and so on are doing a great deal to make that port capable of doing what it is doing—handling large quantities of grain.
I have discussed safe passage again with Mr. Jansson. It is an extremely difficult situation. He has made representations to the Ethiopian Government, but we must realise that there is a bitter civil war going on, and that neither side is likely to relinquish that war at present.
With regard to the Hercules only supplementing truck food aid, I have made clear what the role of the Hercules is, and what the role of the truck is. I have not concealed the fact that the trucks are the major part of the operation. I have told the House that the number of trucks is now building up well, but at the same time I believe that the Hercules has a role, which it carries out superbly, in supplementing the efforts of those trucks.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in contrast to the carping attitude of Opposition Members, Conservative Members are delighted with the content of his statement? Can he

727
enlighten us as to whether the extra cost of the Hercules project being extended will fall on the aid budget, or is it additional to his present budget? What representations did my hon. Friend make to the Ethiopian Government about the reported charges that they are making the entry of grain into ports, which charges are an affront to most people in this country?
Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am also grateful to the Ministry of Defence for agreeing to continue to meet a half share of the costs of the Hercules. The half share amounts to about £750,000 per month. Throughout the operation, the Ministry of Defence has given every possible help.
I discussed port charges at length with the Ethiopian Government and the voluntary agencies. What is needed now is for the voluntary agencies to get together, make a clear statement of their position, talk to the United Nations Co-ordinator and then present their case in a co-ordinated and effective way to the Ethiopian Government. We shall certainly support that.
Dame Judith Hart: Does the Minister accept that, of course, there will be a warm welcome for the fact that the Hercules operation is to continue at least until the end of the year? However, is he aware that there is deep concern throughout the country, first, that not one extra penny has been added to the aid programme to meet the crisis; secondly, that that means that somewhere in the aid programme other people's desperate needs are not being assisted; and, thirdly, that in terms of the supply of trucks and transport there is a general view that, given the long advance notice of the needs, the Government have been dilatory and economical, and that they failed to do what they should have done at the time to meet those needs? Those trucks should have been ordered five months ago and already delivered, not waiting to be delivered.
Mr. Raison: I entirely reject the right hon. Lady's charges. It is not true that no additional money has been provided. As I said only a minute ago, the Ministry of Defence has been providing additional resources. With regard to the overseas aid budget, the bulk of what we have done has been funded from our contingency allowance, which exists exactly for this purpose. Secondly, we have used the food aid programme properly; that is, we have concentrated it on areas of famine and greatest need. As a result, we have been able to maintain an extremely effective quantity of emergency relief during the past few months without cutting our bilateral country programme.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are all pleased that hard-headed has not meant hard-hearted—most of us thought that it would not—and therefore we all welcome the continued use of the Hercules aircraft? Will he tell the House how he has been able to get on with helping the Ethiopian Government to come to realise that those in rebel areas must be fed, and not just those who support their awful regime?
Mr. Raison: The civil war makes for an extremely difficult problem in that respect. It is significant that the province of Eritrea has received the highest percentage of the food needs of any province. Moreover, we have made money available to international and voluntary agencies as another means of reaching people in the rebel areas.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I welcome the statement, so far as it goes. Does the Minister accept that the problems that are being encouraged by the Ethiopian regime make the point that diplomatic initiatives are crucial for the next phase of aid to that country? What talks have he and his right hon. and hon. Friends had with those whom the Government believe can bring pressure to bear on the Ethiopian regime?
Mr. Raison: I had careful talks with the Ethiopian regime while I was there, especially about the relief operation and the long term. I did not generally talk about the wider diplomatic position, but we follow events in Ethiopia closely. The work that we are doing now is in many ways enabling us to build a closer everyday relationship, but substantial long-term problems must still be settled. If we are to provide long-term relief aid, there must be a greater meeting of the minds than there has been in the past.
Mr. David Harris: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and reject completely the weasel words of the Opposition in reaction to it, but will he tell the House whether during his visit to Ethiopia he had the opportunity to bring home to the Ethiopian Government the strong feeling, not least in this House, about the plight of political prisoners. especially members of the former royal family, including women who have been held in prison for nearly 11 years without trial? Did he make that point forcefully?
Mr. Raison: Yes, I made exactly that point to a senior representative of the Ethiopian Government.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: I join those who have welcomed the report as far as it goes, and it does not go far, but is the Minister not a little ashamed of his inadequate rejoinder to the recent report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which demonstrated in detail and conclusively that by far the greatest part of the aid figures, which the right hon. Gentleman is fond of bandying about, consists not of new money but merely of recycled money?
Mr. Raison: I have already told the House that the money that we are spending on relief in Ethiopia and elsewhere is largely derived from the contingency reserve, which exists precisely to deal with contingencies and emergencies. It is backed up by a judicious and well-directed use of our food aid programme. Together with our share of the European Community contributions and the use of some of the shortfall that may occur at the end of an accounting year, we have been able to mount an effective response. In the last financial year we provided £95 million of relief aid. That is nothing to be ashamed of.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: When my right hon. Friend visited Ethiopia last week, did he get the impression that the Ethiopian Government were much more prepared to co-operate with donor nations and organisations in accepting and distributing the relief, and that that Government were doing all that could reasonably be expected of them, with their resources, to relieve the effects of the famine? If that was the case, as I fervently hope it was, is this not in marked contrast to the position last November, when my right hon. Friend previously visited Ethiopia?
Mr. Raison: I think that there has been such an improvement in the position. For example, the everyday

729
working relationship between the RAF team and its Ethiopian counterparts is very good. I would not deny the fact that substantial problems remain to be tackled. However, thanks in good measure to the wisdom of the United Nations Co-ordinator, Mr. Jansson, who is doing an outstanding job, our excellent ambassador and others, there is an effective day-to-day relationship on which I hope we can build.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What lies behind the elliptical sentence in the Minister's statement:
"It is of course essential that the Ethiopian Government make available all the trucks that they can."
Is this about the civil war? What is the position about spare parts for trucks?
Mr. Raison: There are other calls on Ethiopian trucks—after all, some normal life must continue—but the civil war is a factor. The lack of spare parts is at least as great a problem as the provision of new and additional trucks. The country is extremely short of spares, and Britain has done a great deal to provide them, especially for Land-Rovers, where we are most able to do so.
Mr. Roger King: Reports reached us a short time ago that the Ethiopian Government were trying to get their railway system working again. As it is largely comprised of steam locomotives, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to encourage the thousands of steam buffs and engineers in Britain to go to Ethiopia and help to put the system in working order?
Mr. Raison: That is an attractive proposition, and I understand why people may he thinking along those lines. However, the immediate job must be done primarily by road transport, with the valuable complementary contribution of the RAF and other aircraft there.
Mr. Derek Foster: Is the Minister not ashamed that he must be propped up to make excuses for his Government's slashing of overseas aid by 18 per cent. since 1979? Is not the generosity of the British public in stark contrast to the meanness of the Government?
Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman does not understand that the British public provide the voluntary contribution and the Government's contribution through taxation. The British public have shown clearly their concern by subscribing large sums of money. I believe that the Government have every reason to be proud, not ashamed, of the high quality and effectiveness of our aid in Ethiopia, the Sudan and throughout our aid programme.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government can rightly be proud of the aid and assistance that they have given to Ethiopia? Have not the Government given the lead to the international community in their response to the Ethiopian crisis, and is it not also true that if the Ethiopian Government had used their resources as effectively as they might have done at the beginning the problem would not be as great as it is now?
Mr. Raison: Obviously, history has much to do with the present crisis, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. There is no doubt that the Government have given the lead in sending aircraft to Ethiopia—ours were the first to get there—and in concentrating effectively on the bottlenecks which are causing most difficulty.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Although I appreciate the Minister's report of his visit to Ethiopia, does he admit that the overseas aid budget has been cut in real terms since last year, and has been cut substantially since 1979? Is that not a scandal at a time when the human race faces its biggest disaster for many decades'? Does he agree that that fact is widely appreciated by the British people'?
Mr. Raison: There have been reductions in real terms in the aid programme as a result of our public expenditure policy. However, during the past three years we have fully maintained the programme in real terms.
Dr. Ian Twinn: Despite what Opposition Members have said, is my right hon. Friend aware that the good news that he has given to the House will be warmly welcomed? What practical help can be given to Ethiopian farmers now that the rains have started?
Mr. Raison: We have already provided help to farmers through the EEC, which is concentrating on the provision of seeds, and bilaterally in the provision of pesticides to deal with the army worm, which is causing great trouble. I have decided to send tools to help provide for the rehabilitation of agriculture.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: What precise part do the Government propose to play in meeting the shortage of trucks? The Minister put the shortfall at 400 long and short-haul trucks, in the words of the UN Co-ordinator. Will we provide the parts for these, or will we provide a proportion of the trucks?
Mr. Raison: There is a real problem here. The principal trucks being used in Ethiopia are Mercedes, Fiat and Volvo. The authorities there do not wish to add new varieties of truck, because of the great difficulty of servicing them and obtaining spare parts. For those reasons, small additional numbers of other makes are not what they want. We have decided to concentrate our efforts in areas where we can do most. As the House knows, our help includes providing aircraft and Land Rovers. Where we have provided additional Land Rovers, we have also provided a substantial quantity of spares. We have also sent out somebody from British Leyland, who is organising the RRC servicing and repair of Land Rovers. This has to be a co-ordinated effort in which each country does what is most effective, and that is the v^ ay in which we are proceeding.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be more rejoicing in heaven over money given voluntarily by people to help citizens in need on the other side of the world than there will be over money which is taken in taxation and spent by Governments? When one talks about Government money, one is really talking about taxpayers' money, and it is much more meaningful when this is spent voluntarily, because in that case the heart goes out as well as the money.
Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The voluntary contributions of the British people to this crisis have been wholly admirable.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister accept that every test of public opinion, including taxpayers' opinion, suggests that the Government should be contributing more? Will the Minister tell the House

731
why the Ministry of Defence is contributing only 50 per cent. of the costs of the Hercules, instead of a full 100 per cent.?
Mr. Raison: There is a deepening understanding of these problems on the part of the public, and I welcome that. The reason why the Ministry of Defence is contributing only 50 per cent. is that this is clearly not a defence operation. The Ministry has been extremely generous. Over the first three months it contributed the entire extra cost, and since then it has contributed half the extra cost, and will continue to do so. I am grateful to the Ministry of Defence for its generosity.
Mr. David Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to tell us what level of aid the Soviet Union is giving to the starving people in Ethiopia?
Mr. Raison: Essentially, the Soviet Union's contribution has to be measured in arms, but it also has its Antonov aircraft, whose natural habitat seems to be the airstrip rather than the air.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Does the Minister agree that there is a direct relationship between lives saved and money sent to Ethiopia? As a consequence, does he agree that every penny that the Government take from concerts such as those organised by Live Aid and records like those made by Band Aid condemns some Ethiopians to death? Will the Minister join me in putting pressure on his colleagues and getting that message through to them? Every penny raised by voluntary and charitable organisations ought to be sent where it is meant to go, which is to Ethiopia, and not into the pockets of those who do not deserve it.
Mr. Raison: It is my understanding that the Customs and Excise Department displayed a sympathetic approach to the recent Live Aid concerts.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad that the £50 million raised worldwide by the excellent Live Aid concert is contrasted with the £200 million spent by the Ethiopian regime on its
732
10th anniversary celebrations? Has he seen any sign of a change in attitude by the Ethiopian regime towards its own expenditure?
Mr. Raison: I did not discuss celebrations and so on with the Ethiopian Government, but I had many discussions about longer-term matters. Among some members of the Ethiopian regime there is an attempt to concentrate on essentials, but the mystery, or the problem, about Ethiopia is what lies in the minds of those who ultimately hold power there.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When the Minister met many of the so-called top people in Africa—civil servants, heads of the armed forces and judges—did he say that he would have brought more money with him if Her Majesty's Government had not come across a clever little ruse of deducting VAT and otherwise taxing various other charitable efforts, resulting in their pocketing more money out of all the efforts of those trying to raise money for Ethiopia, and that, instead of taking it with him, he had left behind about £10 million to put into the pockets of judges, top civil servants and all the rest of the nobs in this country? How contemptible can anyone get?
Mr. Raison: I am happy to say that I made no such absurd observation during my visit.
Mr. John David Taylor: What was the response of the Ethiopian authorities to the Minister's complaint about the scandalous increases in port charges for food aid from the United Kingdom? As the right hon. Gentleman underlined in his statement that the advantages of the rain had not extended to Eritrea and Tigré, what additional proposals have our Government to assist those two provinces?
Mr. Raison: On that latter point, we provide food aid to voluntary agencies and international agencies, which are able to work in all parts of the country.
The port tax is a somewhat more complicated matter than has been portrayed. Food and relief supplies which go direct to the RRC appear to pay a lower rate of agency charge than other food or relief supplies. What is important is that the voluntary agencies get together and establish exactly what they are having to pay. If we can help them to make effective representations, I am willing to do so.

Top Salaries Award
4.2 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—it is a matter of urgent public interest—namely,
"the implementation without the approval of the House of Commons of Report No. 22 of the Review of Top Salaries",
the implementation of which is of obvious and continuing detriment to good industrial relations in the public sector.
It is clear that the desire to debate the matter is not confined to one side of the House. On Friday, six Government supporters expressed their deep concern at the Government's decision and, since then, other Conservative Members have added their voices to the chorus of apprehension and disapproval. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker. that were you to grant this application, it would be welcomed on both sides of the House.
Despite the position made very clear on Friday and repeated in quotations in newspapers over the weekend, it is obvious that the Government still do not realise the depth of feeling which has been engendered by last week's decisions—the decision on one day to scrap wages council protection for young workers and, on the next, for example, to increase the salary of the Secretary to the Cabinet by £23,750 a year.
To debate the Government's attitude on these matters would allow the House of Commons to reflect the outrage which is undoubtedly felt in the country and perhaps enable right hon. and hon. Members to fulfil their traditional function of changing the Government's mind on behalf of public opinion. Were we able to do that, it would be possible to remedy some of the damage which is already being done among workers in the public sector.
I give one example to justify the argument that House of Commons intervention is important now. As matters stand, the decision on the top salaries award will have a direct and detrimental effect on the prospects of further disruption in our schools next autumn. There is no doubt from the published statements that the teachers' unions. contemplating a settlement, have been moved away from conciliation and compromise by what was decided last Wednesday and Thursday.
Were we able to change the Government's mind by debate, we would have a chance to save the country from the Government's folly, to attempt to change the Prime
734
Minister's mind and, and as a result, to avoid the disruption which is bound to follow if the Government continue this confrontational policy.
One other factor makes last Thursday's announcement unique. Other large pay awards have been made to top civil servants and the like, but on previous occasions those awards have been phased over two years or more. This year, the whole amount—46 per cent. or 35 per cent.—-is to be paid within a period of nine months. That compression of the payment—the virtual instant: payment of the whole award—has added enormously to the offence felt by lower paid workers, especially those in the public sector, some of whom earn only a fraction of the salary increases which the Government accepted last week for judges, senior civil servants and senior officers in the armed forces.
If we do not debate the whole subject—not the decision to increase the salary of one member of the Government, which we shall be able to debate tomorrow—the House will rise on Friday, the increases will be paid, and the bitterness will remain in the public service for years to come. Today, I ask for the opportunity for the House to change the Government's mind and avoid that bitterness. It is in that spirit that I beg to ask leave to move my motion.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the implementation without the approval of the House of Commons of Report No. 22 of the Review of Top Salaries."
I have listened with the greatest care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow.
I regret that I cannot find the matter that the right hon Gentleman has raised meets the criteria laid down in the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Hattersley: I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the careful consideration that I know that you have given to this matter during the day.
I understand fully the constraints under which you operate. Therefore, it is the duty of the Opposition to find other ways in which it can be raised. Thank you very much.

Police Training Manual
4.7 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the contents of the Public Order Tactical Operations Manual drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers and approved by the Home Office."
The manual provides for the training of the police in paramilitary operations, including instruction in methods of incapacitating demonstrators by the infliction of actual bodily harm or the use of police horses to canter into crowds and the tactical use of noise to instil fear, all of which are in clear breach of the law.
The existence of these tactics and parts of the manual from which they came were disclosed in the cross-examination by the defence in a recent trial in Sheffield. The trial came to an end when the prosecution withdrew all the charges against the accused before it had even completed the presentation of its own case, and the document was made publicly available only over the weekend.
The matter is specific in that it relates to one document containing instructions for the police that have never been published before and now only partially available and clearly and specifically provides for a major breach of the law by the police.
It is important because it is a manual that has clearly been in use throughout the miners' strike and elsewhere, and it throws a completely different light upon certain events which occurred during the strike.
It is urgent because, unless the House discusses it before the summer recess, the police in Britain may continue to be subject to orders that lead them to act illegally and violently against persons engaged in protests or demonstrations who have never been arrested or charged with any offence.
The document was apparently drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers—not an authorised or official body—after the disturbances that occurred in Brixton, Bristol and Toxteth in 1981, and the pages which were released during a recent trial made it clear that officers had been given instructions which laid them open to charges of assault. It is clear from the details that the manoeuvres, with short shields, long shields, horses and truncheons, that it recommends should be deployed are in clear contravention of the rules that have hitherto governed the actions of police forces.
The House will be familiar with the background of the case that I have in mind. It is now over. For the first time, therefore, it can be referred to in the House. Certain
736
persons were charged with riot. Mr. Clements. the deputy chief constable of Yorkshire, said at the beginning of the trial that it was the most serious case of public disorder that he was aware of this century. In the middle of the trial the prosecution offered to drop all the charges if the accused would agree to be bound over to keep the peace. They refused to do so, because they were innocent. Police videos were shown to the jury. They showed that it was a peaceful demonstration until the cavalry charges. The BBC itself had transposed the film to show the missiles were thrown before the charges, whereas the police videos showed that the charges took place before the missiles were thrown.
This manual is a major development in police action. With the long summer ahead of us and with the responsibility of the Home Secretary absolutely manifest, his Department having approved the manual, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the Adjournment motion in order that the House can discuss the matter before the recess.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the contents of the Public Order Tactical Options Manual drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers."
I have listened with great care, and in no way do I underestimate what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I have to give him the same answer as I gave to his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will find other ways of bringing the matter before the House before we rise for the summer recess.
Mr. Benn: I am not questioning your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I am asking for your consent to do something which requires your consent. Hon. Members are unable to place documents in the Library of the House without the consent of the Speaker. though Ministers can.
Mr. Speaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure about that?
Mr. Benn: I have checked this, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that you should give your consent that the documents released at the trial relating to the police manual should be placed in the Library of the House so that they can be properly and formally published.
Mr. Speaker: If that is within my responsibility, it seems to me to be a very reasonable request.

Top Salaries Award
4.12 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your advice? As Speaker of the House, you will not have been aware of the fact that lively interest has been expressed this weekend by our constituents in a debate that is to take place tomorrow night for an hour and a half on the subject of the Lord Chancellor's salary'. The cases that will be made by the two Front Benches will take at least 20 minutes each. This means that only about 45 minutes will be available to Back Benchers to make their points. Is there any way in which this debate can be changed from one that lasts for an hour and a half to a debate that lasts until any hour of the night so that hon. Members can express the opinions and feelings of their constituents?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not unaware of this matter, because I am also a constituency Member of Parliament. However, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is patently a matter for his right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and the usual channels.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we shall be breaking up later this week and there will be no opportunity for nearly three months to discuss a matter which, as you have implied, is causing a great deal of concern in our constituencies, is there not a responsibility upon the Leader of the House, who is present on the Government Front Bench, at least to tell the House that the Cabinet will consider allowing a debate that lasts for more than one and a half hours? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is absolutely correct. If the Front Benches take up, and rightly so, the normal amount of time allotted to them, how many Back Benchers are likely to be called tomorrow—one, two, or three at the most? Is it not scandalous that, on top of what has happened, Back Benchers are to be deprived of the right to debate this matter for at least three months? The Leader of the House has a responsibility to ensure that we have sufficient time in which to debate this matter.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I appreciate that announcing the business on Friday meant that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) did not have the chance to raise the matter with me, albeit indirectly, until now. However, the day and time were chosen in the belief that they would be for the general convenience of the House. However, I am happy to have these matters looked at again, as Mr. Speaker has indicated, through the usual channels, but I do not want to hold out too many hopes to my hon. Friend.

Emergency Procedure
4.15 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to matters of emergency and urgency. I do not want to ask a question that impugns the reason why a private notice question request may have been turned down. The fact that I made one this morning on a matter of considerable importance relating to a tribunal decision on the Welsh language is only one example of what may happen. When a matter of importance like this requires a decision to be taken by you, in conjunction with the Department that will have to answer the question, or otherwise, and you decide, in your wisdom, not to allow a private notice question to be asked—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now raising that matter which I have already said is out of order. Perhaps he would phrase his point of order in a different way.
Mr. Wigley: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible, in these circumstances, for a reply on a private notice question refusal to be given before 12 midday so that the hon. Member who has raised the question cart come to the House under Standing Order No. 10 and ask the House to consider, through you, whether the matter is of sufficient importance and urgency to merit an emergency debate. That is a reasonable point to put. It would facilitate the discussion of emergency matters, without hon. Members having to resort to the belt and braces procedure of putting in both a Standing Order No. 10 request and a private notice question simultaneously, thereby making work for you.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that it has long been the practice of the House that to put in a private notice question backed up by a Standing Order No. 10 request is unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman, and every other hon. Member, must make his decision as to which of the two courses of action he prefers to adopt. I have nothing further to say, apart from this: there will be other opportunities this week when the matter can be aired by him.

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs
4.17 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Circumstances have come to your notice through a letter, which may or may not have reached you, which was written at 1.30 pm. I understand that the majority report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was laid before the House this weekend and that it contains strong criticism of my behaviour. It implies serious steps relating to alleged defiance of the House of Commons; an alleged defiance of the wishes of the Committee.
It appears to me to be contrary to the traditions of the House and the relations between hon. Members for a Select Committee to criticise an hon. Member without asking that hon. Member either for a written explanation or providing him with the opportunity to give evidence before the Committee. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker: is it proper for a Select Committee of the House to make such charges, for such they appear to be, against a Member of this House, under pages 704 and 705 of "Erskine May", without even having asked that Member for an explanation, let alone having asked him to appear as a witness?
There was no leak until Ministers, for their own reasons which it would be improper to go into on this occasion, decided to charge Clive Ponting under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and send him to the Old Bailey and to make public announcements, on a Saturday in August 1984, to that effect. I ask, very gently, whether we are in the position now of having kangaroo courts in the House of Commons.
This point of order is about the right of hon. Members to be heard before they are rebuked by a major report of a Select Committee. There are two sides to this story, and
740
before the report was issued my side ought to have been heard. Nearly 20 years ago I was hauled before a senior Committee of the House on the subject of chemical and biological weapons and was reprimanded. Many people have doubted the justice of what happened then. On this occasion, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues, that I behaved properly and that it was Ministers who opened the Pandora's Box which led to the Ponting trial. May I ask you to rule on this matter when the papers become available to you?
Mr. Speaker: I say straightaway to the hon. Gentleman that the whole House will agree that no one here would doubt his honour. As to the matter that he raised, which is a serious one, the report has not yet been published. I have received the hon. Gentleman's letter, which enabled me to look into the matter, and I draw attention to the front page of the report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which says:
"This Document is issued in advance on the strict understanding that no approach is made to any organisation or person about its contents before the time of publication."
Therefore, I have had no opportunity of seeing what the hon. Gentleman alleges and nor, I think, has any other hon. Member.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Somehow or other, by some alchemy, it has become the talk of the place. Certainly, the Chairman of the Select Committee did not consult me about it. When I arrived from Edinburgh this morning I was confronted by these questions, which I was supposed to answer.
Mr. Speaker: I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot rule on the matter today. We must return to it on Wednesday, when the report is published.

Orders of the Day
  Social Security Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Social Security Bill
    Clause 9

      ABATEMENT OF INVALIDITY ALLOWANCE, ETC., WHERE BENEFICIARY ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPONENT IN PENSION OR TO GUARANTEED MINIMUM PENSION
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 11, line 36, leave out "below" and insert
      "of the Social Security Act 1975"
      4.21 pm
      The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 2, in page 12, line 9, leave out "below" and insert
      "of the Social Security Act 1975"
      Mr. Newton: These are drafting amendments, which correct a mistake in the present wording.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 3, after clause 9, insert the following new clause—Voluntary redundancy entitlement to unemployment benefit—
      "In section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975 (disqualifications for receipt of benefit). the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
      "(3A) For the purposes of this section, a person who has been dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy within the meaning of section 81(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 after volunteering or agreeing so to be dismissed shall not be deemed to have left his employment voluntarily."."
      Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 9, in clause 29, page 27, line 10, at end insert—
      "section (Voluntary redundancy—entitlement to unemployment benefit);"
      Mr. Newton: This is more than a technical amendment, but I hope that it will command ready support on both sides of the House. It amends section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975 and has been proposed to maintain the Government's policy that people who are made redundant, even though they may have agreed to take voluntary redundancy, should not be regarded as having left employment voluntarily, which would mean that they would incur up to six weeks disqualification from unemployment benefit.
      Until recently it was understood to be the case—and it was certainly the Government's intention—that people taking voluntary redundancy would not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for up to six weeks. However, the chief adjudication officer, who is independent of Ministers—for once I have proof of that fact, which hon. Members have been known to doubt—issued new guidance based on recent case law suggesting
      742
      that those who had volunteered for redundancy should normally be regarded as having left employment voluntarily, with the consequences that I have described.
      That would have had serious implications for redundancy schemes in a number of industries, not lease the mining industry, and was most unwelcome to the Government. Faced with that advice, which we could not overturn and for which we could not substitute Minister's views, we decided that the proper course was to change the law to make sure that it clearly achieved what Ministers wished to achieve.
      Happily, we had before Parliament at the time that flexible instrument the Social Security Bill—it has proved to be an almost infinitely flexible instrument—and we took the opportunity to insert the amendment and amendment No. 9, which is consequential, to establish the position as we and, I believe, the whole House want it to be.
      Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I welcome the amendment and the speed with which the Government have acted. I am only sorry that I have not been able to give the Minister more notice of a question that I wish to put to him. The circular that gives rise to the question has come to my notice in only the past few days.
      Can the Minister tell us now—if he cannot, will he check the matter—whether the amendment covers all the cases raised in the circular, which refers not only to the case being changed by the amendment, but to similar action being taken where a claimant is participating in an early retirement scheme or has retired at the normal retiring age but had the option of remaining in the job?
      I am as horrified by the assumption that people should be forced to stay on after the normal retirement age or risk losing unemployment benefit as I am by the chief adjudication officer's original proposal. Will the Minister confirm that he is under the impression that both areas are covered by the new clause and that, if not, the Government will consider my question with the same speed as they considered the earlier proposal?
      Mr. Newton: There may be some misunderstanding here, but I shall check on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
      However, I can make it clear that the amendment is related to voluntary redundancy and not to voluntary retirement, which is a different issue. Although the chief adjudication officer has issued fresh and clearer guidance on early retirement, it did not significantly change the position from what it was understood to be. I hope the hon. Lady will agree that a decision to remove oneself from the labour market early is not the same as a voluntary redundancy under an agreed redundancy scheme. The same considerations would not necessarily apply.
      There may be some misunderstanding about those who retire early. If a person retires after he is entitled to the national insurance retirement benefit, that is a matter for him. If he has the relevant contribution record, we shall pay the national insurance retirement pension. The point at issue is whether people should be entitled to unemployment benefit.
      A person who retires voluntarily, whether before or after retirement age, cannot be regarded as unemployed in the normal sense. If he retires after retirement age and has the relevant contribution record, he will be entitled to retirement pension, in which case he would not be entitled to unemployment benefit.
      Mrs. Beckett: I confess that I had to read the circular several times before I could understand what it could be getting at. I do not see how it could be dealing with someone who retires after the normal pension age. Presumably it refers to people in jobs where the normal retirement age is earlier than, say, 65 for men.
      We all know that people have been said to be retiring voluntarily when, in effect, they are taking redundancy. The two things are not interwoven in pay terms, but they become interwoven in moving people on from their jobs. Will the Minister consider my question?
      Mr. Newton: I shall certainly look at the matter raised by the hon. Lady, but I do not think that we face the difficulty that she suggests might exist.
      There are provisions for those who retire on an occupational pension after the age of 60, but before 65. Those provisions govern their entitlement to unemployment benefit and the extent to which their occupational pension is taken into account against benefit. However, that is a different point from that raised by the hon. Lady.
      I think that the position is fair and that it is right to maintain a distinction between voluntary redundancy and voluntary retirement. However, I shall crawl over the circular and over the hon. Lady's words to make sure that she does not have a valid point—she has been right before—and that I am right to offer her reassurances.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause

      UP-RATING BENEFITS
      Lords amendment: No. 4, after clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
      ".—(1) The words "in the month of June" shall be ommitted from subsection (1) of sections 125 and 126A of the Social Security Act 1975 (annual reviews of benefits for purposes of up-rating).
      (2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4A) of section 125—
      "(4A) A review under this section or section 126A below shall cover a period of not more than twelve months beginning immediately after the end of the period covered by the last review under the relevant section."."
      Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 38, in schedule 6, page 69, line 26, column 3, at end insert—

      "In section 125(1), the words "in the month of June".

      In section 126A(1), the words "in the month of June"."

      4.30 pm
      Mr. Newton: The amendments make it possible for the Government to align the social security uprating year, which currently runs from November to November, with the year which applies to tax, rent and rates—April to April. The Government have given notice of that intention.
      There were two possibilities. One was to have a 16-month gap between upratings, from November to April. We did not find that prospect attractive, so we decided to adopt the obvious alternative—to have two
      744
      upratings in the 16-month period. We intend to make social security upratings in November 1985, July 1986 and April 1987.
      We need to amend the Bill because the current law requires the Secretary of State to review social security benefits in June. The amendment allows the Secretary of State flexibility to conduct upratings at shorter intervals over the next two years. I hope that the House will think that reasonable.
      I emphasise that the change in the law will not allow us to make upratings at intervals of more than 12 months. Benefits must be reviewed at intervals which cannot exceed 12 months. We intend to stick to the historic method. Upratings will be related to a measured past increase in prices—the latest that we can consider in order to carry out the uprating when it is due. I hope that the House will agree to the amendments.
      Mrs. Beckett: We understand the proposed mechanism, but we have reservations about the dates. Are the dates likely to be in legislation. or will they be arbitrary? Most of the proposals for the social security' review are likely to be unpopular, so perhaps we can see a hint of the date for the next general election, as we are to have two upratings before April 1987.
      Mr. Frank Field: Twice in our history Governments have tried to change the length of the year. The first was in medieval times, and the second was during the period of this Government, when claimants had to live in a 53-week year and then in a 54-week year.
      The House should welcome the move so long as we have an undertaking that it will not be used to cut the real value of benefits. I have three questions for the Minister. When the Government calculate the move to July and then to April, will the calculation accurately reflect the number of weeks involved? Secondly, may we have an undertaking that because prices vary throughout the year, with peaks and troughs which are evened out on a year-to-year basis, the move will not lead to benefit levels which are lower than the old November-to-November levels? Thirdly, since convention, and not statute, links supplementary benefit to prices, will that convention be maintained?
      Mr. Newton: I shall answer first the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). The amendments will give the Secretary of State flexibility in the uprating date, although the interval cannot be longer than 12 months. My off-the-cuff reaction is that I can see no reason why the actual dates for the uprating need to be written into legislation.
      I do not understand the first question asked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The problem about the number of weeks in a benefit year arises because of the quirks in the calendar. Our calendar does not have precisely 52 weeks in a year. I do not wish to weary the House with another lecture on the phenomenon which came to be known to the cognoscenti as "creep", but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that if upratings take place religiously at 52-week intervals they steadily advance through the year, and if one projects into the next century there could be two upratings in a year because of that phenomenon.
      We propose two upratings at eight-month intervals, so it is fruitless to argue about how many weeks there are in a month. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's

      745
      argument. We shall take the latest available retail prices index for the appointed time, which enables us to carry out the uprating at the time that we want to do it, and apply that faithfully to the benefit figures.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's second question more clearly. We abandoned the old forecasting method because of its uncertainties. Without going back to that method, it is difficult to estimate the precise effects on benefit levels of using different periods. It is clear that any change in the period of uprating means that at some point in the following period benefit will be higher than it would otherwise have been because the uprating has been advanced. At some other period it would be lower for the opposite reason. The exact effects at a particular time will depend on the pattern of inflation, which I cannot predict.
      I hope that I understood the hon. Gentleman's third question. We certainly intend to maintain the historic basis of uprating and to apply it in the way described. We shall not alter the method without making it plain to Parliament. We think that our proposal is sensible and right.
      I do not wish to mislead anybody. Supplementary benefit uprating is related to the retail prices index, less housing costs. That is another complicated factor which makes it difficult for me to give better answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause

      VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 5, after clause 20, insert the following new clause—
      ".In section 1 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979—

      (a) in subsection (1), for "£10,000" there shall he substituted "the relevant statutory sum";

      (b) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—

      "(1A) In subsection (1) above "statutory sum" means £10,000 or such other sum as is specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Act by order made by statutory instrument with the consent of the Treasury and the relevant statutory sum for the purposes of that subsection is the statutory sum at the time when a claim for paments is first made."; and
      (c) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
      "(4A) No order shall be made by virtue of subsection (1A) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and been approved by a resolution of each House."."
      Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following Lords amendments:
      No. 7, in clause 28, page 26, line 37, at end insert—
      "(3A) Section [Vaccine damage payments] extends to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man."
      No. 8, in clause 28, page 26, line 38, leave out "(3)" and insert "(3A)"
      No. 10, in clause 29, page 27, line 15, at end insert—
      "section [Vaccine damage payments];"
      No. 40, in the title, in line 3, after "to" insert
      "amend section 1 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and"
      I must inform the House that these amendments involve privilege.
      Mr. Newton: The amendment provides the power needed to change the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 to vary the amount payable by means of an order subject to affirmative resolution in each House.
      The House will recall that among the many announcements made by my right hon. Friend during recent weeks that have caused pleasure was his statement—[Interruption] Do I sense an air of disbelief in the House? It cannot be from the Government Benches and there are hardly sufficient Opposition Members present to constitute disbelief.
      The House will recall that my right hon. Friend told the House on 18 June of his intention to double the present vaccine damage payment of £10,000—which has stood unaltered since such payments were first introduced under the 1979 Act—to £20,000. There was no provision in the 1979 Act for increases. Therefore, we have used the flexible instrument of this Bill to introduce the necessary primary legislative amendment quickly. We hope to bring the necessary order before the House at the earliest possible moment after the Bill has received Royal Assent., should it be so favoured.
      Although the power that we have taken will make the new amount payable in respect of new claims made on or after the date of coming into operation of the order, my right hon. Friend is making arrangements to apply the increased amount to new, successful claims made on or after 18 June, when he announced the increase. I hope that that provision will be welcomed by the House and that I will have its support in carrying this amendment into law.
      Mrs. Beckett: We give a cautionary welcome to the proposal. It is most unfortunate that the payment has not been increased since it was announced in 1978 and introduced in 1979. We note the flexibility of the Bill that has allowed this proposal to be chucked in at the last minute.
      Why was the proposal chucked in at the last minute? Given that it is a fairly obvious proposal for the Government to introduce, we wonder why it happened only in the amendments made in another place and was not put before us for lengthier consideration at an earlier stage. What will be the cost of the increase in a full year?
      Most important, we wonder what the proposal means for the future of the scheme. The Minister said that there was no provision for increases under the 1979 Act. I am sure that he will recall that that was because we did not want the Act to pre-empt decisions that we thought would have to be made following the recommendations of the Pearson commission. It was intended as a stop-gap measure to ensure that vaccine damaged children received some assistance before a proper scheme could be worked out that would be more far-reaching and generous.
      Will introducing the proposal to increase the sums available, welcome though it is, mean that the whole idea of implementing the Pearson commission's recommendations has now been consigned to the dustbin? The sum is to be increased broadly in line with the rate of inflation between 1978 and the present day. Is it intended that the order should be increased each year, as are other regular payments? If not, I am sure that the Minister will tell us why not.
      On the timing of the proposal, will the Minister tell us what light it casts on the consideration of the review being undertaken into degrees of disability? Although any increase is always welcome, it is a little strange that the

      747
      Government have brought forward this proposal so abruptly at a time when they are undertaking a fundamental survey of the needs of the disabled.
      4.45 pm
      Mrs. Edwina Currie: My hon. Friend introduced the amendments with a degree of levity. I wish briefly and seriously to welcome the Government's prompt action in responding to the needs of these children. I am especially delighted that the measure will be backdated to 18 June. That is a tremendously generous gesture and will be very welcome.
      I first came across vaccine damaged children in care in Birmingham. I was most concerned by the degree of disability that they suffered. Some were only mildly disabled, but some were seriously disabled and many will need care for the remainder of their lives. One family in my constituency has a seriously disabled daughter aged 14, who obviously faces the future with some apprehension.
      Mr. Frank Field: It is understandable that the hon. Lady should welcome the measure and its backdating. But does she not realise that, in a sense, it would be unfair if the benefit was reviewed only every so many years? Many of our constituents will have claimed compensation at the old rates and some will be a few days outside being eligible for the new rates.
      While we welcome the uprating—I am sure that the whole House does—if it is reviewed only every now and again instead of regularly each year, that will make a tremendous difference to the amounts of money payable to these children.
      Mrs. Currie: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that nothing can compensate for that sort of disability when children are born normal but handicapped through vaccine. I hope that he will bear with me for a minute because I have a view on the matter that he raised.
      These children are tragic victims of something that, in a sense, benefits the whole of society. I hope that people will not be put off having their children vaccinated and inoculated. The hospital with which I used to be involved in central Birmingham was involved in the eradication of smallpox, which was substantially carried out through an inoculation programme. I hope that in years to come the day will arrive when most infectious diseases can be eradicated from this nation and others by such programmes.
      There is no doubt that those who care for these people are devoted and dedicated, whether the children are in care or at home. They deserve our full support. I hope that eventually it will be possible to set up some form of proper tribunal for assessment of such cases to determine payment of appropriate compensation—perhaps on the lines of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. However, this is obviously not the time to debate the methods that might be used.
      I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the Government's generous action in introducing these amendments.
      Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) for her kind words.
      748
      I come now to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). To pick up the slightly uncharacteristically uncharitable phrasing that she used about why the proposal was "chucked in at the last minute", I can tell her that it was because a number of representations had been made to the Government. It is well known that there has been concern about this matter for some time.
      The Government came to the conclusion—and I personally strongly reached the conclusion—that it was right to create a position in which we could increase, and increase more easily, the amount payable. and we have taken the opportunity provided by this Bill to do that.
      On the last of the hon. Lady's questions about inflation and future uprating, this increase goes rather beyond the simple application of inflation during the period since 1979. No doubt because of the movement in prices at some points around the time when the payment was first introduced, the calculations may depend slightly on the time of the year taken. My calculations show that the 1985 equivalent of the £10,000 applicable in 1979 is £17,750. Therefore, on that basis the increase to £20,000 is significantly more than pure inflation proofing.
      Mrs. Beckett: I calculated my figures from the announcement of the scheme in 1978, and what was thought then to be a worthwhile sum of £10,000 would now need to be £19,230. The Government are being slightly generous, but not a lot.
      Mr. Newton: That may be right, but the hon. Lady might have been wiser not to have raised that point because she has calculated the rate of inflation between the time when the then Labour Government announced the proposal in 1978 and implemented it in 1979. That is not the sort of issue on which I want to have a verbal punch-up with the hon. Lady today, but when she walks right into it in that way I am bound to pick up the implication of her remarks.
      What we are doing cannot be described as a mean increase. It represents a broad sum of £20,000, ahead in value of the £10,000 when it was introduced in 1979. That probably gives the hon. Lady a clue to my next remark, which is that we do not have a definite plan for annual uprating, though it follows from the type of amendment that we have made—which is not to substitute a new substantive figure in the primary legislation but to take power to make such an increase by order—that there will henceforth be greater flexibility. As I say, I cannot make a commitment on behalf of the Government to engage in annual uprating of the payment.
      Regarding the future of the scheme, as the hon. Member for Derby, South pointed out, some of the broader issues that can be related to this relatively limited issue—picking up the whole theme of the Pearson commission and the question of compensation more widely—go wider than we can sensibly debate today. However, the hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have not accepted the recommendation of the Pearson commission for a system of compensation in the courts based on strict liability in tort, subject only to causation being proved.
      I hope that I carry the hon. Member for Derby, South—this answers her question about our survey of the extent and effect of disablement in the population—when I say that it would not be sensible now to make

      749
      further large decisions in this sphere until we have the results of that survey—which is the biggest survey ever carried out in Britain of disablement problems and their effects—and are thus in a position to have the greater information required to examine disability and disability benefits as a whole.
      Mrs. Beckett: May I take it, therefore, that the Minister is saying that the decision to make the uprating in this way does not pre-empt a more widespread scheme in the future?
      Mr. Newton: In putting forward this proposal in relation to vaccine damage payments under the 1979 Act, the Government are not seeking to pre-empt anything in the future. Equally, I am not seeking to prejudge anything in the future or to suggest that the Government have taken decisions beyond the decision to raise the vaccine damage payment from £10,000 to £20,000 in relation to claims made on or after 18 June 1985.
      The hon. Member for Derby, South questioned me about the cost. It is modest. We estimate that the extra cost in a full year will be £120,000, so that in terms of the great sweep of the Department of Health and Social Security budget it is a small sum. Nevertheless, it will be of considerable significance to those families who are helped.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 28

      EXTENT
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 26, line 37, leave out
      "extends to Northern Ireland only."
      and insert—
      ", this section, and sections 29 and 30 below extend to Northern Ireland."
      Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Clause 28 provides for the extent to which the Bill applies to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This technical amendment provides that clause 28, and clauses 29 and 30, extend to Northern Ireland, as we are, naturally, anxious that those in Northern Ireland, as well as those in the rest of the United Kingdom, should have the benefits of the provisions of the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 10 agreed to [Some with Special Entry.]

    Clause 29

      COMMENCEMENT
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 27, line 17, after "paragraphs" insert "22,".
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment. Clause 29, which deals with commencement, states that any provisions not specifically listed there will be brought into force by commencement order. Paragraph 22 of schedule 5 is not listed, even though it will have retrospective effect from 1 January 1985. This is obviously inconsistent, and the amendment adds this provision to the list of those that will take effect on the day the Bill is enacted.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      TRANSFER AND REVALUATION
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 31, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert—
      "52C.—(1) The taking out or the transfer of the benefit of a policy of insurance or a number of such policies, or the entry into or the transfer of the benefit of an annuity contract or a number of such contracts, if it takes place after the commencement of this section. only discharges trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme from their liability, or any part of their liability."
      Mr. Whitney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following Lords amendments:
      No. 13, in page 31, line 40, at beginning insert -for or".
      No. 14, in page 31, line 40, leave out from "person" to end of line 43 and insert
      "in a case where and to the extent that subsection (2) below has effect."
      No. 15, in page 31, line 44, at end insert
      "at the time an earner's pensionable service terminates or at any later time"
      No. 16, in page 31, line 49, after "provided" insert
      "for or in respect of him"
      No. 17, in page 32, line 1, leave out
      ", after an earner's pensionable service terminates"
      No. 18, in page 32, line 4, leave out "(a),"
      No. 19, in page 32, line 8, at end insert—
      "(2A) Where before the commencement of this section—

      (a) an earner's pensionable service terminated; and

      (b) at the time his pensionable service terminated or at a later time the whole or any part—

      (i) of the requisite benefits; or

      (ii) of the short service benefit or of any alternative to short service benefit,

      provided for or in respect of him by an occupational pension scheme was appropriately secured,
      the trustees or managers of the scheme shall be deemed to have been discharged from their liability, so far as what they were liable to provide was so secured, at the time when it was first so secured."
      No. 20, in page 32, line 15, leave out from beginning to "authorised" in line 16 and insert—
      "(a) the insurance company with which it is, or was. taken out or entered into is, or was, at the relevant time."
      No. 21, in page 32, line 18, after "1982" insert
      "or any similar previous enactment"
      No. 22, in page 32, leave out lines 20 to 31.
      No. 23, in page 32, line 33, leave out "prescribed conditions" and insert
      "conditions which satisfy such requirements as may be prescribed".
      No. 24, in page 32, line 36, leave out "prescribed conditions" and insert
      "conditions which satisfy such requirements as may be prescribed".
      No. 25, in page 32, line 36, at end insert—
      "and
      (e) it satisfies such other requirements as may be prescribed."
      No. 26, in page 32, leave out lines 39 to 41.
      No. 27, in page 33, line 8, at end insert—
      "(4A) In subsection (3)(a) above, "the relevant time" means the time when the policy of insurance was taken out or the annuity contract was entered into or, as the case may be, when the benefit of the policy or contract was transferred."
      No. 28, in page 33, line 44, leave out from "where" to end of line 45 and insert
      "section 52C(2A) above has effect."
      No. 29, in page 33, line 47, at beginning insert—
      "section 52C(2A) above does not have effect and".
      No. 30, in page 33, line 48, leave out "(a)" and insert "(b)".
      Mr. Whitney: Our consultations with experts in the pensions world have persuaded us that there are deficiencies in the provisions in new sections 52C and 52D which the Bill adds to the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. I must admit that these provisions have given us considerable trouble, and I record our gratitude for the help and advice that we have been given by the pensions experts.
      The amendments clarify the position—a position which we had always intended to achieve in this part of the Bill—relating to the extent to which trustees can discharge their liability when the benefit rights of early leavers are secured by an insurance policy.
      We are dealing with a number of amendments and I am conscious of the fact that this is not the first time that it has been necessary for us to amend these provisions. However, we are dealing with a complicated area of law, even by the demanding standards of occupational pensions legislation. The changes reflect our wish to get the new provisions right and our willingness to listen to the experts to enable us to do that. Should hon. Members require me to do so, I shall spell out the detailed points of the amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 30 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 35, line 31, leave out "and".
      Mr. Whitney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a minor drafting amendment, but it seems worth getting paragraph 2(2) right while schedule 1 is being amended. The removal of the word "and" is a drafting point.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 37, line 8, leave out "his widow" and insert
      "to any other person in respect of him"
      Mr. Whitney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment which will put right a defect in the revaluation requirements for flat-rate benefits. The requirements apply, for other benefits, to all dependants' benefits provided by the scheme, but flat-rate benefits cover only widows benefits. This is an error which the amendment corrects.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 37, line 20, leave out
      "payments made from time to time"
      and insert
      "a payment or payments made"
      Mr. Whitney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      752
      This is another technical amendment. The definition of a money purchase benefit is defective because it does not cover the situation where the benefit results from a single contribution or payment. This amendment will remedy the defect.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 39, line 35, after "to" insert "or in respect of
      Mr. Whitney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to consider at the same time Lords amendment No. 35, in page 39, line 37, after "to" insert "or in respect of"
      Mr. Whitney: It has been suggested that it is not entirely clear whether accrued rights include all benefits for or in respect of the member. These amendments make it clear that they do.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 35 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 36, in page 40, line 46, leave out "or friendly societies" and insert
      "such as are mentioned in section 52C(3)(a) above"
      Mr. Whitney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is another technical amendment. When someone uses a transfer value to buy an annuity, the annuity will have to satisfy prescribed conditions. It was always our intention that these conditions should include restrictions on with whom the policy or contract can be taken out. It was also our intention that the prescribed conditions should not conflict with new section 52C, which deals with discharging liability on buy-out. We now have doubts whether the power in paragraph 13(2)(b) is sufficient to enable us to do this. We have therefore concluded that it would be best to put this provision on all fours with new section 52C.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 5

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 68, line 15, at end insert—
      "32A. The words "under section 38 of this Act" shall be omitted from subsection (5)5b) of section 59 of that Act (increase of official pensions)."
      Mr. Whitney: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 39, in schedule 6, page 69, line 38, column 3, at end insert—
      "In section 59(5)(b), the words "under section 38 of this Act."
      Mr. Whitney: The amendments are technical and put right an oversight in the Health and Social Security Act 1984.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 40 agreed to.

  Interception of Communications Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Interception of Communications Bill
    Clause 1

      PROHIBITION ON INTERCEPTION
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert
      "Subject to the following provisions of this section,"
      5 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office, (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 7, leave out from "offence" to end of line 15 and insert "and"
      No. 3 in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      "(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if—

      (a) the communication is intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under section 2 below; or

      (b) that person has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to whom, or the person by whom, the communication is sent has consented to the interception.

      (2A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if—

      (a) the communication is intercepted for purposes connected with the provision of postal or public telecommunication services or with the enforcement of any enactment relating to the use of those services; or

      (b) the communication is being transmitted by wireless telegraphy and is intercepted, with the authority of the Secretary of State, for purposes connected with the issue of licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 or the prevention or detection of interference with wireless telegraphy."

      No. 15, in clause 10, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
      " "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949;"
      Mr. Waddington: The amendments implement an undertaking that I gave in Committee to narrow the exception to the new offence which dealt with giving consent to an interception. The amendments make a drafting change to the exception for interception for purposes connected with the provision of postal or telecommunications services. We are making it clear that the exception covers Post Office powers to open letters believed to contain inflammable material or to monitor obscene telephone calls, which is an offence under the Telecommunications Act.
      Finally, the amendents incorporate a further but limited exception for those acting under Wireless Telegraphy Act powers who monitor radio transmissions for purposes connected with the issuing of licences or for the protection or prevention of radio interference. Certain forms of telecommunications on the public system are nowadays conveyed by radio for part of their journey. In certain circumstances, those acting to prevent interference might have to monitor across a band that is used by such a system and this exception is introduced against that possibility.
      I hope that I shall be excused for mentioning one other matter and setting the scene for our consideration of the eight groups of amendments that we shall be discussing. This group of amendments, and Lords amendment No. 5, fulfil undertakings. The others respond to submissions
      754
      made in another place, which in some instances followed on from what was said in this place a few months ago. In the course of the earlier proceedings in this place the Government demonstrated their readiness to meet submissions made to them by making a number of significant changes. The nature of the amendments now before us is further evidence of the Government's willingness throughout to accept constructive suggestions from whichever side of the House they have come and to deal with these important issues in the non-partisan spirit which I am sure the House would wish.
      Mr. John Golding: I speak for the union which sponsors me, the Union of Communication Workers (Engineering Group). There is still some disappointment that unofficial telephone tapping has not been tackled further. All the amendments made in another place have improved what we consider to be a fundamentally unsatisfactory position. I welcome the slightly greater protection that will be given to employees by Lords amendment No. 3 in subsection (2A)(a). It widens the definition to cover
      "the enforcement of any enactment relating to the use of"
      public telecommunication services.
      We shall have to consider the operation of this measure extremely carefully. It will be important for the Government to give thorough consideration to the detailed working of the measure within a few months, or perhaps within a year, to ensure that it is operating satisfactorily and fairly.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

    Clause 2

      WARRANTS FOR INTERCEPTION
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
      "(2A) The matters to be taken into account in considering whether a warrant is necessary as mentioned in subsection (2) above shall include whether the information which it is considered necessary to acquire could reasonably be acquired by other means."
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment clarifies "necessary" in clause 2, obliging the Secretary of State, as he always does in practice, to consider whether the information in question
      "could reasonably be acquired by other means."
      Thus the Bill expressly mentions one of the main elements of the existing non-statutory procedures set out in the White Paper in a way which I hope will commend itself to the House. The change places beyond any doubt that there must be a consideration of alternatives and that it is one of the factors which the tribunal will consider in reviewing the Secretary of State's decisions. By qualifying "necessary", the amendment applies also to the Secretary of State's power to renew warrants and his duty to cancel them.
      Mr. Clive Soley: The Minister moved towards us at a number of stages in the Bill's passage through this House. It is sad that he did not so move at an earlier stage on this issue. The argument was advanced clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on Second Reading.
      In Committee, the. Opposition moved amendments which were supported by some Conservative Members.

      755
      The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), for example, supported the Opposition in a Division that we forced in an effort to get an amendment made to the Bill. If we had been successful, their Lordships in another place would have been saved some trouble.
      I am rather puzzled why the amendment has taken the form in which it appears before us. The 1980 White Paper stated:
      "normal methods of investigation must have been tried and failed, or must, from the nature of things, be unlikely to succeed if tried."
      Their Lordships have included a rather weaker test. The test is that
      "The matters to be taken into account … could reasonably be acquired by other means."
      That is a looser test than that which appeared in the White Paper. On balance, we would have preferred the White Paper's wording. However, that is a minor matter. The inclusion of the amendment strengthens the Bill and for that reason we welcome it.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I echo the remarks of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The acceptance of the amendment will improve the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for notifying the Government's acceptance. I am much in favour of defining the circumstances in which a warrant can be issued and defining them as exactly as possible in the circumstances. The amendment is a step in the right direction. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me when I say that it is a small step and that I wish he had gone further.
      Mr. Waddington: I take on board the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). White Paper language is seldom suitable for direct incorporation into statute. For example, that criterion rests on "normal" methods having failed, but normality does not have a sufficiently precise meaning to serve here at the heart of the statutory definition of the Secretary of State's powers. The alternative test of impracticability, which was proposed in an amendment which was tabled in another place, does not allow the Secretary of State to take proper account of the need for speed or the adverse consequences of the discovery of alternatives. I believe that the formulation before us follows existing practices and gives proper effect to the approach set out in the White Paper. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham for their comments, but even by their lights the amendment offers an improvement.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 4

      ISSUE AND DURATION OF WARRANTS
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 4, line 6, leave out from "period—to end of line 13 and insert—
      "

      (a) in relation to a warrant which has not been renewed, means—

      (i) if the warrant was issued under subsection (1)(a) above, the period of two months beginning with the day on which it was issued; and

      756

      (ii) if the warrant was issued under subsection (1)(b) above, the period ending with the second working day following that day:

      (b) in relation to a warrant which was last renewed within the period mentioned in paragraph la(ii) above, means the period of two months beginning with the day on which it was so renewed; and

      (c) in relation to a warrant which was last renewed at any other time, means—

      (i) if the instrument by which it was so renewed is endorsed with a statement that the renewal is considered necessary as mentioned in section 2(2)(a) or (c) above, the period of six months beginning with the day on which it was so renewed: and

      (ii) if that instrument is not so endorsed, the period of one month beginning with that day."

      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment fulfils an undertaking that was given in Committee that the Government would incorporate in an appropriate way in the Bill the arrangements for the duration of warrants as set out in paragraph 11 of the White Paper. The amendment secures the same practical effect as those arrangements. The original undertakings met with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that its implementation in this way will be found equally acceptable.
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I asked for this amendment on Second Reading and requested it from the Home Secretary in the discussions that I had with him. The Home Secretary was good enough to tell me that he would meet that request. The amendment fulfils that undertaking and I thank the Government for making an important improvement in the Bill.
      Mr. Waddington: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being helpful. He suggested this amendment at an earlier stage. It concerned another of those cases where one could not incorporate in the Bill the precise wording of the White Paper, but we knew what we wanted to attain and we have attained it.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 6

      SAFEGUARDS
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 5, line 5, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (3)"
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 17, at end insert "and"
      No. 8, in page 5, leave out lines 19 to 21.
      No. 9, in page 5, line 23, at end insert
      "(3) The requirements of this subsection are satisfied in relation to any intercepted material if each copy made of any of that material is destroyed as soon as its retention is no longer necessary as mentioned in section 2(2) above."
      Mr. Waddington: These amendments incorporate in the clause 6 safeguards an express reference to the destruction of material the retention of which is no longer necessary. They fulfil an undertaking given following discussions in the other place of an amendment identical to the one moved by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in Committee on 2 April. The change makes explicit the requirement that material must

      757
      be destroyed as soon as it no longer meets the purposes for which warrants can be issued, and it can be welcomed by both sides of the House.
      Mr. Kaufman: The amendment is welcome, but where are alliance Members? We hear a great deal about the concern of the Liberal and SDP Members for civil liberties, but not one of those hon. Members is present in the Chamber for this extremely important debate. They have a great deal to say outside the Chamber about their claims to work hard here, but when we are debating matters of fundamental importance to civil liberties, heaven alone knows where they are. It is important to have that on record.
      Mr. Golding: There is a trip to Windsor races this evening.
      Mr. Kaufman: If alliance Members are on that trip, they are doing something more constructive than they are normally doing. Nevertheless, it is offensive to the House that, when a Minister says that he is adding something to a Bill in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), neither the hon. Gentleman nor any of his colleagues is here.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9 agreed to.

    Clause 7

      THE TRIBUNAL
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 5, line 40, after "applicable" insert "by a court"
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment complements the reference to judical review added to the Bill in Committee on 2 April, which was accepted on both sides of the House as placing beyond any doubt that it was the task of the tribunal to consider whether the Secretary of State's decision was proper. This further change meets concern expressed in the other place about whether the principles of judical review were sufficiently clear and states expressly that they are the principles that would he applied by the court. Therefore, the amendment does not change the substance of the clause or alter the effect that, in the Government's view, was secured by the earlier change. Hon. Members may see this amendment as a clarification, and in that sense I invite them to agree to it.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 9

      EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 8, line 16, after "apply" insert
      "—
      (a)"
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 18, at end insert
      "or
      (b) where the evidence is adduced or the question in cross-examination is asked for the purpose of establishing the
      758
      fairness or unfairness of a dismissal on grounds of an offence under section 1 above or of conduct from which such an offence might be inferred:
      and paragraph (a) of that subsection does not apply where a person has been convicted of the offence under that section."
      Mr. Waddington: These amendments meet a point originally identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) in Committee. He pointed out that if the Post Office or a public telecommunications operator were challenged in an industrial tribunal with dismissing an employee on grounds of conduct that amounted to improper interception, they might not be able to adduce evidence in support of their case. The same matter was pursued by an Opposition spokesman in the other place. The Government found the point persuasive, and these amendments meet it.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for having responded to my point. The amendment takes account of the point that I was making, and there should be no further problems.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.

    Clause 10

      INTERPRETATION
      Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 8. line 40, leave out from first "copy—to "and" in line 41 and insert
      ", in relation to intercepted material, means any of the following, whether or not in documentary form—

      (a) any copy, extract or summary of the material; and

      (b) any record of the identities of the persons to or by whom the material was sent:"

      5.15 pm
      Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 7. leave out from "warrant" to end of line 9.
      Mr. Waddington: These are drafting amendments, which secure the better expression of two of the terms used in the Bill. They make no change of substance.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 14 and 15 agreed to.

    SCHEDULE 1
      THE TRIBUNAL
      Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 11, leave out lines 27 to 37 and insert—
      THE TRIBUNAL

        Procedure of Tribunal
        3. The functions of the Tribunal in relation to any application made to them shall be capable of being carried out, in any place in the United Kingdom, by any two or more members of the Tribunal designated for the purpose by their President; and different members of the Tribunal may carry out functions in relation to different applications at the same time."
        Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        This amendment fulfils an undertaking given in Committee in the other place to introduce a quorum for the tribunal. It means that no decisions may be taken in the name of the tribunal by fewer than two of its members. It has been necessary to recast paragraph 3 of schedule 1, but

        759
        the other adjustments are essentially consequential and do not affect its substance. In particular, the president of the tribunal will, as in the original version, remain responsible for determining how business will be conducted, and so for deciding how many members in addition to the minimum two should be concerned with any particular matter.
        Question put and agreed to.

  Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Bill
    Clause 1

      OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH ALCOHOL ON COACHES AND TRAINS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 3, leave out from "offence" to end of line 7 and insert—
      "

      (a) if the vehicle is a public service vehicle and he is the operator of the vehicle or the servant or agent of the operator, or

      (b) if the vehicle is a hired vehicle and he is the person to whom it is hired or the servant or agent of that person".

      5.17 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 14, leave out
      "in relation to such a vehicle"
      No. 3, in page 2, line 16, leave out from "1981" to end of line 18.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments relate to the liability of operators and hirers of vehicles to which clause 1 applies and their servants or agents, who knowingly cause or permit the carriage of alcohol. As presently drafted, the clause catches the operator and the hirer and the servant or agent of either whether the vehicle in question is a public service vehicle or a train. During earlier proceedings on the Bill, hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), expressed concern that in England and Wales the position of British Rail and its employees would be different from that in Scotland. In England and Wales they would be liable; in Scotland they would not. The Government agree that the position should be the same so far as possible on both sides of the border, and that is the purpose of these amendments.
      The net effect of the amendments is that for public service vehicles—coaches and so on—the hirer and the operator and the servant or agent of either are all caught whereas for trains only the hirer and his servant or agent are caught. So British Rail and its drivers, guards and ticket collectors are not liable.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

    Clause 2

      OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH ALCHOHOL, CONTAINERS ETC, AT SPORTS GROUNDS
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 19, leave out "a controlled container" and insert
      "an article to which this section applies"
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

      761
      "(3) This section applies to any article capable of causing injury to a person struck by it, being—

      (a) a bottle, can or other portable container (including such an article when crushed or broken) which—

      (i) is for holding any drink, and

      (ii) is of a kind which, when empty, is normally discarded or returned to, or left to be recovered by, the supplier, or

      (b) part of an article falling within paragraph (a) above; but does not apply to anything that is for holding any medicinal product (within the meaning of the Medicines Act 1968)."

      Mr. Shaw: These amendments relate to the types of container which people will be prohibited from taking into football grounds and from possessing in any area of the ground which has a direct view of the pitch. In Committee, a number of hon. Members thought that our definition was too wide. Particular concern was expressed because articles such as thermos flasks and scent bottles would be prohibited. By these amendments, we have sought to narrow the definition so that only those containers which are most likely to be used as missiles are prohibited.
      As compared with clause 2(3) the amendments limit in two respects the containers caught. First, only containers for drink would be caught. Clause 2(3) catches containers of liquid. The effect of this is to free such items as scent bottles and deodorant aerosols. Secondly the amendments would catch only containers which are normally discarded when empty, or returned to the supplier. This would decriminalise—if that is the word—such items as thermos flasks and babies' bottles. We are catching cans and most bottles, and glasses of the type normally provided in pubs and bars. These are the containers most commonly misused. I hope the House will welcome the restrictions embodied, and the revisions made, in these amendments.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the attention the Lords gave this matter. It may seem trivial but it is important to many people who enjoy attending various types of sports fixture. My noble Friend Lord Harris did excellent work on the Bill and described the problem of the small boy with a soft drink at a cricket match. Small boys have attended cricket matches and had bottles of squash for many years and I hope that they will long be able to do so. The Minister said that we are considering people carrying a drink container at a football match, but we are not. The amendment is about people carrying drink containers at any type of sporting fixture that Ministers might decide to include in the scope of the Bill. I appreciate the care that the Lords gave this matter precisely because the Bill goes so wide.
      It has been suggested that the other place should not have given the Bill such detailed consideration, but that the consequences of the parties in this House ensuring that the Bill had a smooth passage ought to have been that the Lords gave it no attention or only minimal attention. I refute that view and the suggestion, which appeared in some of the public prints, that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), by having a valuable meeting with the Home Secretary, committed themselves to every jot and detail of a Bill that had not then been printed.
      One of the features that bears on the amendment, but which was not in the Bill as it was then described, is the ease with which the Bill can be extended to any other sport. It could cover sports that take place during much longer periods of time than football matches, such as
      762
      whole day race meetings, athletics meetings and cricket matches. Moreover, the Bill could apply to sports that are generally attended by whole families, such as speedway.
      Only a motion under the negative procedure is required to extend to any other sport the provisions concerning containers. Under that procedure, there is no guarantee that an hon. Member or substantial group of hon. Members can secure votes, or even a debate, on the matter. There is usually not too much difficulty securing a debate in Committee on a prayer, but such debate does not give rise to a vote on the Floor of the House. It is therefore open to a Minister to extend the Bill to any other sport by a procedure which offers no guarantee of a vote. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends remain worried that the Bill is couched in such wide terms as to open up such a possibility.
      The way of life of people who attend longer lasting sporting events could be affected, and there are problems concerning sponsorship of sports grounds by companies involved with alcoholic or non-alcoholic drinks. It would be helpful if the Minister could affirm that the only problem of which the Government are aware concerns football. The ease with which the Minister spoke of the Bill applying only to football enables us to read the minds of Ministers, but the wide powers involved have understandably given rise to anxieties in sports such as cricket, racing, speedway and rugby league, where there are no crowd control problems and nobody throws drink bottles about. The normal peaceful watching of sport should be allowed to continue without interruption or the threat of it.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I am glad that the Government have decided that the amendment can be accepted. When we last discussed the matter, I expressed considerable anxiety on several scores. The first was that the Bill would be extended to a variety of sports such as cricket. I tabled an amendment which suggested that the Bill should be extended only by affirmative resolutioh. It received the support of the Liberal party—it is perhaps the first time that I have ever had its support—but, unfortunately, it was not selected.
      I also expressed doubt about the desirability of prohibiting such a wide range of containers, which would have included thermos and hip flasks, as they might also be prohibited at cricket matches. I welcome the amendment. It reduces the scope of activity which is rendered criminal, and I favour that. I still regret that the Bill is couched in such wide terms, but the Government's acceptance of the amendment is welcome and I congratulate my hon. Friend on having done so.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: With the leave of the House, may I say that my right hon. Friend has no intention at present of designating grounds or sporting events other than those which are associated with association football and which have been so described. However, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, there could be an occasion when action might have to be taken fairly speedily should there be a further outbreak of the type of crowd violence that has given rise to the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

    Clause 3

      LICENSING HOURS WITHIN SPORTS GROUNDS. I964 C. 26
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 4, line 36, 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".
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a highly technical drafting amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 4
      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS ABOUT ORDERS UNDER

        SECTION 3
        Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 5, line 16, leave out "or removal".
        Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        This is a minor drafting amendment. The effect of removal of a justices' licence to different premises is that the premises to which the licence originally related cease to be licensed premises. The words "or removal" thus add nothing to the final words of the subsection.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 5, line 17, leave out
        "or the grant of a protection order in respect of the premises".
        Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 22, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
        "(4) Where an order under that section is in force in respect of any premises and application is made not less than twenty-eight days before the order is due to expire for renewal of the order or for a further order in respect of the premises, the first-mentioned order shall not cease to have effect by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above until the application is disposed of by the magistrates' court."
        Mr. Shaw: Both of these amendments are designed to protect football clubs which undergo a change of licensee. As the Bill is drafted, such a change could in certain circumstances terminate the exemption order with no possibility of a new order for at least 28 days. That would mean that no alcohol could be sold at the premises during that period. We see no justification for penalising a club under those circumstances, which are probably outside its control. The amendments permit the current exemption order to continue in force until the courts have dealt with a fresh application for a new order by the new licensee, provided that the application is made in good time before the expiry of the current order. The amendments are somewhat technical, but I hope that the House will agree to accept them.
        Mr. Tom Pendry: I understand that the amendment originated with a firm of Liverpool solicitors which managed to see the Bill and comment on it in time for its suggestions to be included. That is a victory for people who will be closely affected by the Bill. The Bill was rushed. Not many of us were able to see such comments in time for them to be debated, and it took the other place to rectify that shortcoming. It is
        764
        therefore right that the other place had longer than us to discuss the Bill. The Bill is bad in many respects and I hope that the promised monitoring exercise is effective.
        Mr. Shaw: I accept that, through the co-operation of the official Opposition and the other parties, the Bill was granted rapid progress. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the circumstances in which the legislation was brought before the House are, I hope, exceptional, in both their character and importance.
        The hon. Gentleman referred to monitoring. The assurance given by my noble Friend Lord Glenarthur in the upper House is clear. It is our intention to review the position during the season in relation to the legislation on public order that will be brought before the House in due course. My noble Friend gave the assurance that the long title of that Bill would allow, if it were necessary, and if my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary deemed it right, for amendments to be brought forward. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that further amendment would have to be looked at carefully in relation to the state of the game at the time.
        5.30 pm
        Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As we are coming to the end of the not exactly protracted proceedings on the Bill, and as the Act will be in operation at the beginning of the football season in fewer than four weeks from now, may I ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to keep the House informed of the progress of the monitoring exercise, so that we may share in the information that the Government will be gaining on the use of the Act? For example, it would be interesting if the House could be informed periodically of the number of exemption orders being granted. There may be no reason why we cannot be given a list of the clubs that have been granted those orders. It would also be interesting and useful, if we have to reconsider these matters in future more permanent legislation, for the police, the football authorities and others to give us some idea, first of the success of the Act in dealing with the serious problem that every one of us in the House wants to be dealt with, and secondly of the financial effect on the clubs because, inevitably, that has given rise to a great deal of concern. It would be useful if, over the next season, we could be kept informed of how things were going on that front, too.
        Mr. Shaw: I fully understand why it would be useful to keep the House informed. I am sure that that will be done through the questioning procedure.
        The consequences on the football clubs were the crucial factor giving rise to the concern expressed about the exemption procedure, particularly for sponsored boxes. I understand that it is the intention of the football league itself to keep my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary advised on how it views the position. Its information could form the basis of any evidence that is put before us. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right. We have agreed to review the matter as the season progresses.
        The right hon. Gentleman said that there might be a review of the legislation to put it on a more permanent footing. I remind him that it is primary legislation, which is therefore already on a permanent footing.
        Mr. Kaufman: Of course, we have the questioning procedure, but we do not always know when information

        765
        is available to the Government. It would be useful if the Government, of their own accord, could make information available to the House from time to time. It may well be that the Minister is unaware of the device of the planted question. I should like to remind him of it. It is something to which he might have recourse to keep the House informed.
        Mr. Shaw: Of course, as I am so close to the Floor, I rarely stoop so low, but I understand that there is such a device. I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 9 agreed to.

      Clause 10

        AMENDMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT I980
        Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert—
        "(a) in section 68(1), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted
        "(c) a sporting event, or a class of sporting event, taking place outside Great Britain:";"
        Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        The amendment corrects a drafting defect in relation to the Scottish legislation—the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. As presently drafted, it gives the impression that the Secretary' of State would designate grounds outside Great Britain, whereas all that is required is that events, or classes of event, should be designated. The amendment now makes that clear.
        Mr. Beith: It is ironic that the last Lords amendment that we should consider brings us back to the basis on which the Bill was introduced—an event that took place outside Great Britain at a sportsground that is incapable of being designated, even under the amendment. Useful though the provisions will be in controlling alcohol in football grounds. I believe that they leave unanswered many of the problems of football hooliganism, including some of those that may have contributed to the original cause of the Bill. Those problems will require the continued attention of Ministers.
        Mr. Shaw: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was not purely the event that occurred in Brussels that gave rise to the legislation, although it was the last straw. I am sure that he recognises that the problem of violence in football grounds has been steadily getting worse in recent years, culminating in major events during the last season here in the United Kingdom.
        Question put and agreed to.

    Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
      New Clause 2

        MEANING OF 'ASSOCIATE'
        —(1) Subject to subsection (7) below, for the purposes of this Act any question whether a person is an associate of another person shall be determined in accordance with the following provisions of this section (any reference, whether in those provisions or in regulations under the said subsection (7). to a person being as associate of another person being taken to be a reference to their being associates of each other).
        (2) A person is an associate of an individual if that person is the individual's husband or wife. or is a relative, or the husband or wife of a relative, of the individual or of the individual's husband or wife.
        (3) A person is an associate of any person with whom he is in partnership, and of the husband or wife or a relative of any individual with whom he is in partnership; and a firm is an associate of any person who is a member of the firm.
        (4) For the purposes of this section a person is a relative of an individual if he is that individual's brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal ancester or lineal descendant, treating

        (a) any relationship of the half blood as a relationship of the whole blood and the stepchild or adopted child of any person as his child; and

        (b) an illegitimate child as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father, and references in this section to a husband or wife include a former husband or wife and a reputed husband or wife.

        (5) A person is an associate of any person whom he employs or by whom he is employed; and for the purposes of this subsection any director or other officer of a company shall be treated as employed by that company.
        (6) In subsection (5) above, "company" includes any body corporate (whether incorporated in Great Britain or elsewhere).
        (7) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

        (a) amend the foregoing provisions of this section so as to provide further categories of persons who, for the purposes of this Act, are to be associates of other persons; and

        (b) provide that any or all of subsections (2) and (6) above (or any subsection added by virtue of paragraph (a) above) shall cease to apply, whether in whole o: :in part, or shall apply subject to such modifications as he may specify in the regulations; and he may in the regulations make such incidental or transitional provision as he considers appropriate. '.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        5.35 pm
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): 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 Government amendment No. 30.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The purpose of the new clause is to provide a definition in the Bill of the expression "associate", and follows from our discussions in Committee. The definition covers the principal categories relevant to personal bankruptcy of persons who are defined as being associates for the purposes of the Insolvency Bill. The definition will allow for arty necessary changes to it to be made by regulations. The amendment to clause 72 makes a consequential change in the interpretation clause.
        Mr. Bruce Millan: I welcome the new clause. In Committee I said that it was unsatisfactory that the Bill did not contain a definition of "associate" and I welcome the fact that we now have it.
        I take it that, although the wording is different, the effect of the clause is basically the same as the effect of the definition in the Insolvency Bill. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
        The Solicitor-Generalfor Scotland: I am happy to give that confirmation. The effect is the same. As I said, the only difference is that, should it be necessary to extend that classification, it could be done by regulation in future.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 3

        POWER OF PERMANENT TRUSTEE IN RELATION TO THE DEBTOR'S FAMILY HOME
        '.—(1) Before the permanent trustee sells or disposes of any right or interest in the dobtor's family home he shall—

        (a) obtain the relevant consent; or

        (b) where he is unable to do so, obtain the authority of the court in accordance with subsection (2) below.

        (2) Where the permanent trustee requires to obtain the authority of the court in terms of subsection (1)(b) above, the court, after having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including—

        (a) the needs and financial resources of the debtor's spouse or former spouse;

        (b) the needs and financial resources of any child of the family;

        (c) the interests of the creditors;

        (d) the length of the period during which (whether before or after the relevant date) the family home was used as a residence by any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above; may refuse to grant the application or may postpone the granting of the application for such period (not exceeding twelve months) as it may consider reasonable in the circumstances or may grant the application subject to such conditions as it may prescribe.

        (3) Subsection (2) above shall apply—

        (a) to an action for division and sale of the debtor's family home; or

        (b) to an action for the purpose of obtaining vacant possession of the debtor's family home, brought by the permanent trustee as it applies to an application under subsection (1)(b) above and, for the purposes of this subsection, any reference in the said subsection (2) to that granting of the application shall be construed as a reference to the granting of decree in the action.

        (4) In this section—

        (a) "family home" means any property in which, at the relevant date, the debtor had (whether alone or jointly with any other person) a right or interest, being property which was occupied at that date as a residence by the debtor and his spouse or by the debtor's spouse or former spouse (in any case with or without a child of the family) or by the debtor with a child of the family;

        (b) "child of the family" includes any child or grandchild of either the debtor or his spouse or former spouse, and any person who has been brought up or accepted by either the debtor or his spouse or former spouse as if he or she were a child of the debtor, spouse or former spouse whatever the age of such a child, grandchild or person may be;

        (c) "relevant consent" means in relation to the sale or disposal of any right or interest in a family home—

        (i) in a case where the family home is occupied by the debtor's spouse or former spouse, the consent of the spouse, or, as the case may be, the former spouse, whether or not the family home is also occupied by the debtor;

        768

        (ii) where sub-paragraph (i) above does not apply, in a case where the family home is occupied by the debtor with a child of the family. the consent of the debtor; and

        (d) "relevant date" means the day immediately preceding the date of sequestration.'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 23.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Hon. Members will be aware that the Government have been considering, both in the context of this Bill and the Insolvency Bill. the introduction of the provision to give some protection to certain members of the debtor's family who were living in his property when it vested in the permanent trustee in his sequestration and who are therefore vulnerable under present law to being required to leave that property as soon as the permanent trustee wishes to sell it for the benefit of the creditors.
        The new clause achieves that, first, by requiring the permanent trustee to obtain the court's authorisation if he wishes to sell or dispose of the family home. For this purpose, "family home" is defined as meaning any property in which, immediately before the date of his sequestration, the debtor has a right or interest and which is used as a residence by the debtor's spouse or former spouse or by the debtor and his children. Secondly, the clause requires the court to take into account all the circumstances of each case when considering whether to give such authorisation or any action which would have the effect of requiring them to leave that home. Among the circumstances which the court is specifically required to take into account are the needs and financial resources of the spouse, former spouse or children in the family home, the interests of the creditors and the length of time—both before and after the debtor's sequestration—in which they have lived in the family home. Thirdly, the court is empowered to refuse or impose conditions upon the granting of any such authorisation or decree or to postpone the granting of such authorisation or decree for up to 12 months.
        I recognise that the provision represents a significant inroad into the rights of creditors to all the assets of the debtor, but it was clear during the Insolvency Bill's passage in another place that there was a strong feeling that some regard should be given in these circumstances to the needs of persons who are dependent upon the debtor to the extent that, as a consequence of the sequestration, they may be evicted from property in which they have lived as their family home. I believe that the provision before us represents a reasonable balance between those conflicting interests, in that it gives the court the flexibility to make an appropriate decision in every case, after weighing up the different interests. I therefore commend it to the House.
        Mr. Millan: Again I welcome the new clause, which deals with a matter which I raised in the context of another clause in Committee. A consultation document was issued for the Insolvency Bill, and now there is a similar provision in that Bill.
        The final words of the Solicitor-General for Scotland sum up the whole business. It is necessary to take account

        769
        of the interests of the creditors, but, equally, the bankruptcy of an individual should not impose undue hardship on his wife, or, in the case of a bankrupt woman, her husband, and the rest of the family. It is necessary to strike the right balance.
        I shall not presume to deal with the clause in detail, because we have had little time to consider the detail of it, but its approach. which balances the interests of the creditor and the family, is right, and gives the court the full power of discretion in dealing with these difficult matters. I welcome the clause, especially the approach adopted in it.
        Mr. Donald Dewar: Not for the last time, I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). The Solicitor-General for Scotland properly said that the change was significant and that the new clause was not merely a technical amendment. If one were hostile, one would say that the provisions infringe the rights of the creditor and the powers of the permanent trustee. I think that I speak for many people—I certainly speak for Labour Members—when I say that the provision seems humane and sensible. It is absolutely right that a court should have to give permission for the sale of a home which is occupied by the debtor's spouse or the debtor and his children, and should have the power to weigh all the competing interests and to refuse an application or grant a postponement for up to 12 months to allow the family to make other arrangements for accommodation. Obviously, the matter is important, and the new clause introduces an element of flexibility which is eminently reasonable. I am grateful to the Government for introducing the new clause.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to both the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for welcoming the new clause, and the flexibility that it introduces.
        I should have drawn their attention to a small technical point. In line 27 of the new clause, as printed, where the word "jointly" appears, there should have been substituted the words "in common". I am sure that, as a distinguished conveyancer, the hon. Member for Garscadden will understand why.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 1

        COMPENSATION OF DEBTS DUE TO AND BY THE CROWN
        '(1) Where this section applies compensation shall not be available between debts due to or by the Crown under the provisions of any statute and debts due to or by the Crown in respect of contractual obligations.
        (2) This section applies

        (a) in the case of a sequestration under this Act;

        (b) in the case of a protected trust deed.'.—[Mr. Millan.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Although this is an excellent new clause, I am not as confident that the Government will accept it as I was about the other two clauses. It deals with compensation for debts due to and by the Crown. It is a modified version of the
        770
        new clause which I moved in Committee, in that it is a more modest attempt to reduce the procedure of compensation at present available to the Crown.
        Later we shall deal with the question of Government preference. In a bankruptcy, the Government have both preference on debts and the advantage that, if they owe money to the debtor's estate, they can search for another Government Department which may be owed money by the debtor and set one against the other. That applies to both statutory debts and ordinary debts arising from contractual obligations, which may be in respect of the supply of goods under an ordinary commercial contract.
        As the Government are now all pervasive—not all persuasive, because they are greatly unpersuasive—and large numbers of Government Departments are involved in all sorts of different activities, the Crown has advantages which no individual creditor can possibly have. The principle of compensation and set-off is well established in Scottish law. In the case of the Government, it is taken to extremes. The new clause would limit it to either contractual debt obligations or statutory obligations. It is a restrictive new clause.
        5.45 pm
        Apart from the equity of the matter, there are practical difficulties in settling sequestrations in certain circumstances. Those who are involved in this area of activity tell me that it is sometimes difficult to get money from a Government Department because it will spend a great deal of time making absolutely sure that it cannot avoid paying the money and that the debtor did not owe it or another Department money. As the rest of the Bill reduces Government preference, it is anachronistic to maintain the full rights of compensation and set-off of the Crown. The clause would reduce the set-off considerably. It is an excellent new clause and it will be a pity if the Government do not accept it.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) recognised the difficulties that would have ensued if he had sought, as he did in Committee, to prevent a set-off of debts owed to and by different Government Departments. With regard to the remainder of his new clause, my arguments in Committee remain unchanged, and unless he and and other hon. Members wish me to rehearse them, I shall not do so.
        A further factor must be considered. If a change were made in the Bill to the law relating to compensation, it would create an anomaly, not only between the English and Scottish personal bankruptcy procedures, but between the law of compensation as it relates to company insolvency in Scotland and as it would relate to personal bankruptcy in Scotland. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) did not care for the first argument, he will see the force of the second.
        The right hon. Member for Govan said in Committee in relation to Crown preferences that the argument for a consistent approach throughout the United Kingdom was powerful. The same is true for compensation and set-off. To have one system applying to personal bankruptcies in Scotland and another to all the remaining insolvency procedures in Great Britain is a recipe for considerable confusion and dissatisfaction.
        Mr. Millan: I believe in consistency, which is why I tabled a similar new clause to the Insolvency Bill last Thursday, not with conspicuous success.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to secure consistency. He may feel that he has been badly done by in the House, in that his argument has not secured the favour that he believes it deserves. Nevertheless, if the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that he cannot secure a general change, he should found on his failure and have a consistent approach here.
        For that reason, and without rehearsing the more general arguments on compensation or set-off, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.
        Mr. Dewar: My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) will not have been surprised by the Minister's response. Indeed, there was a hint of his expectation in the way in which he moved the new clause. It is unfortunate that the Government are not prepared to consider the arguments more sympathetically. I did not have the advantage—I use the word a little timidly—of serving on the Committee or of being involved at any stage in the Insolvency Bill, which overshadowed and prejudged many of the decisions made in connection with this Bill. However, I am not greatly impressed by the Minister's arguments on this occasion, although I did not have the advantage of hearing him at length in Committee.
        The fact that there would be a gap between insolvency law for companies and personal bankruptcies might lead to some difficulty, but, as my right hon. Friend said, if the new clause were valid, it would be logical to import a similar approach into the other Bill and not merely to trump the argument by saying that we had made a mistake in the first place. The merits of the matter should rule. In any event, company law has always been on a United Kingdom basis, whereas, almost from the first decade of this century, bankruptcy law has been considered on the different Scottish legal basis.
        I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is a problem with the unbridled right to compensation which the Crown has, and the new clause is clearly an attempt to find a reasonable limitation by stipulating that the right to set-off should be limited, as described, to sums owed and sums payable under statute, or to the set-off between sums that arise from contractual obligations. That is a reasonable proposition, but the Minister has clearly set his face against it.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Although the hon. Gentleman is not persuaded by the Government's approach to the matter—I appreciate that he was not a member of the Committee, so he may have missed the arguments—the Scottish Law Commission, not surprisingly, gave some attention to it when preparing its report. It said that we might need to find a satisfactory solution to the common law on compensation as it stands now, but it did not believe it appropriate to make such a change solely in the context of bankruptcy. It suggested that any change should become part of its examination of the law of obligations in Scotland. That is the best way to approach the matter.
        Mr. Dewar: That may be so, and no doubt that is a persuasive argument for putting off anything. The trouble is that, as we know, the law of diligence has been under review for about a decade, and although the cathartic moment of production is almost upon us—I understand that from a written answer the other day—it has been a long and weary road. I am not entirely convinced by the
        772
        argument that we should leave this matter until the Scottish Law Commission considers the law of obligations, because its review may take a long time. My right hon. Friend was considering the specific problem of compensation and the privileges of the Crown, which are regulated to some extent by statute. If we need a change in the law now, I should have thought that it would be reasonable to try to strike the right balance.
        I should outlive my welcome if I tried to rehearse the arguments that I did not hear in Committee. Therefore, I merely record my regret that Ministers have taken—I suppose predictably—a conservative view of the matter.
        Question put and negatived.

      Clause 2

        INTERIM TRUSTEE
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 33, leave out
        'or is not a fit and proper person to act as an interim trustee'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 2 and 31.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Hon. Members who attended the Committee stage of the Bill will recall that the Government introduced several amendments to provide an interim system relating to the qualifications required for insolvency practitioners under the Bill until part I of the Insolvency Bill comes into effect and the system contained in that part can be used throughout Great Britain.
        These amendments retain that interim provision, but also provide for the time when part I of the Insolvency Bill comes into force. It was originally intended that such provisions would be inserted into this Bill by part I of the Insolvency Bill when that part became effective, but on further consideration we have decided that it is simpler and more convenient to amend now so that the Bill's provisions tell the whole story.
        Mr. Millan: This is another matter which I raised in Committee, and I am glad that the provision is being tidied up. One difficulty with the Bill is that it ran simultaneously with the Insolvency Bill and the Government seemed unable to make up their mind about many important matters in the Insolvency Bill. All the provisions relating to insolvency practitioners were rewritten during the Report stage of the Insolvency Bill last week, which produced an almost completely new part I. I am still unhappy about at least one aspect of the insolvency practitioner provision in that Bill, but it would be more appropriate to pursue that with the Department of Trade and Industry than with the Solicitor-General.
        In the meantime, I am glad that the interim arrangements have been clarified by the amendments.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 2, in page 3, line 45, at end insert—
        ';
        Provided also that, until the coming into force of section 2 of the Insolvency Act 1985 (qualifications of insolvency practitioners), paragraph (b) above shall have effect as if at the end were added the words "or is not a fit and proper person to act as an interim trustee".'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Clause 7

        MEANING OF APPARENT INSOLVENCY
        Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 8, line 13, leave out from 'due' to end of line 27.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the following amendments: No. 8, in page 8, line 17, leave out '3' and insert '4'.
        No. 9, in page 8, line 31, leave out '(c) or (d)' and insert 'or (c)'.
        Mr. Millan: This amendment deals with a matter raised by the Scottish Consumer Council, unfortunately after the Committee stage of the Bill. The matter was not discussed in Committee, but, having considered it with Scottish Members, I believe that the Scottish Consumer Council has a valid point. It is worried about paragraph (d) of clause 7(1), and the first of my amendments would simply eliminate that paragraph. Amendment No. 8 would extend the period of notice from three to four weeks.
        If the Government do not accept that we should reconsider this entire matter, I hope that they will at least accept that we should give a debtor a longer period of notice than three weeks. One week is a modest increase. I hope that the Solicitor-General will not tell me that a clause in the Insolvency Bill—I believe that it is clause 113—provides only three weeks' notice in cases of personal bankruptcy in England and Wales. On this matter there is no virtue in consistency, and it is wrong to have only three weeks in the English Bill. The period of notice should be longer than three weeks.
        The merits of the matter rest on the procedure which allows a creditor simply to serve a notice—a demand for payment—on a debtor. If the debtor does not pay within three weeks, under the terms of the Bill, he will be treated as apparently insolvent. That brings in all the other provisions, including petitions for sequestration, provided in the Bill.
        6 pm
        That is a fairly stringent provision, because in other circumstances, before one can say that a debtor is apparently insolvent, other conditions have to be fulfilled, and they are outlined in the earlier part of the clause. In many cases they involve some sort of preliminary court action, but here there need be no court action at all; simply a notice in a prescribed form by a creditor to a debtor. If, on the basis of that, the debtor does not pay, the whole process of sequestration can follow.
        I am not as worried about this situation as the Scottish Consumer Council appears to be, because in most circumstances the creditor would find the initiation of the whole procedure of sequestration an elaborate way of obtaining payment when, by taking appropriate court action, he could obtain payment of his debt in some other way. Thus the procedure would not be used frequently, certainly not by a creditor as a matter of course. Nevertheless, the Bill says that lodging a demand for payment and not being paid within three weeks is an indication of an apparent insolvency and everything else can follow from that. That worries me considerably.
        It may be that part of the answer lies in the phrase "in the prescribed form". Perhaps the Solicitor-General can let us know what will be included in the prescribed form.
        774
        Presumably, it will include a warning to the debtor about the dire consequences which may follow if he does not pay within three weeks. We do not know whether that is the case, because we have not seen the prescribed form and have not been given any indication of what might be in it.
        Having looked at the provision, I am not at all convinced that it is necessary to have it in the Bill as one of the indications of an apparent insolvency. No creditor will be put to any disadvantage if we simply take it out. If a creditor goes through the courts and obtains a successful decree against the debtor, and the debtor does not pay, then, as I understand the rest of this clause, that by itself is sufficient for him to be able to petition for sequestration. I do not see why the creditor should not be able to go through the court. A simple solution to the problem would be to remove the paragraph altogether.
        The second of my amendments, which would simply extend the period of notice from three to four weeks. is second best. It is not an appropriate way of amending the provision, but the very least we ought to do is to give rather more notice to the debtor. To be frank with the Solicitor-General, when I first looked at the representations of the Scottish Consumer Council I was a bit sceptical. However, having considered them more carefully, I consider that there are strong grounds for being concerned about this paragraph. As I say, I do not believe it will be used as frequently or in the sorts of circumstances about which the Scottish Consumer Council is anxious. The way to deal with those anxieties is to remove the paragraph, and that is the purpose of amendment No. 3.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Clause 7(1)(d) was introduced to provide a relatively uncomplicated means of access to the sequestration process where there is no dispute that a debt equal to or exceeding the relevant amount is payable. For that reason, it also provides a straightforward method for a debtor to avoid being prejudiced by the procedure. He can achieve that by a straightforward denial that a sum of £750 or more is payable. The provision is designed to cover situations where the debtor has not acknowledged that he has ceased to pay his debts but where he is, none the less, prepared to accept, if it is put to him, that he is unable to pay that debt. In those circumstances, it may be in his best interests to have his estate sequestrated.
        The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if the only way in which that can be done is by having the debt judicially constituted, that procedure involves additional expense. It is not a particularly large sum, but at a time when we are constantly trying to ensure that administrative costs are kept to a minimum, if the opportunity is given to the debtor in terms of a letter in a prescribed form and he does not deny the debt, it is a key-in to the sequestration procedure and obviates an unnecessary action for debt which could cost money.
        Mr. Millan: The trouble with that argument is that whatever is in the prescribed form, and whatever is in the paragraph, there will be circumstances where the debtor does not understand the full significance of what is being said to him. Ordinary people understand that if they are taken to court it is a serious matter, but unfortunately quite a number of people get letters asking them to pay bills and pay little attention to them. That applies whether or not the letters are sent by recorded delivery, for which the amendment provides. Many debtors should be paying their

        775
        bills and perhaps are perfectly able to pay them, but they will not realise the full significance of this simply because it does not involve court action.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, but he pre-empts the argument that he knows I am about to make. This is not just a little brown envelope coming through the door. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, when it comes in the prescribed form it will be by recorded delivery. He is correct in that we have not yet decided what the prescribed form will be, but it is expected that the form will spell out clearly that if the debt is in any way disputed a simple denial of the debt will be sufficient to stop a sequestration procedure.
        The right hon. Gentleman and I could go on endlessly disputing whether the form could be set out in a style appropriate enough to make the point clear to every debtor who receives it. Recently we have had cause to be proud of the forms that we have set up, and the Scottish Consumer Council has complimented us in the last two years on a form which was provided.
        Mr. Millan: The Solicitor-General for Scotland is positively smiling.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman says that I am positively smiling, and he is correct. Those compliments were in relation to the form prescribed for the simplified method of divorce. I recognise the anxieties of the right hon. Gentleman, but this provides a simple, cheap and desirable technique.
        The right hon. Gentleman's first amendment seeks to exclude the paragraph altogether, but coupled with it are a number of Government amendments. As he may recall, he was concerned in Committee that a series of debts amounting to £750 might be prescribed as well as a single debt of not less than that amount, and this would entitle a creditor to use clause 7(1)(d). I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point and I hope that the Government amendments make the point clear. Amendment No. 5 provides that a demand under clause 7 must be served on the debtor by recorded delivery. That is to avoid the possibility of the debtor not being aware of the letter because he is on holiday, for example.
        I deal finally with the right hon. Gentleman's amendment changing the period from three weeks to four weeks. With some perception, the right hon. Gentleman anticipated my argument. It is not just an illogical difference between English and Scottish personal bankruptcy provisions. Once again it is the difference in Scotland between personal bankruptcy and corporate insolvency procedures. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, as well as relating to individual insolvency, deals with the insolvency of such entities as partnerships and bodies corporate as well as registered companies. I see that as an anomaly, and accordingly there is no great value in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
        More importantly, because we recognise that there must be some anxiety that too short a period might mean that inadvertently or without the knowledge of the debtor this procedure got under way, we inserted the provision that such a letter had to be served by recorded delivery. That seems to me to be a greater safeguard than three, four or even five weeks. It might be anticipated that ordinary
        776
        people went on holiday for a fortnight, but there could be any one of a variety of reasons which took someone away from home for a longer period and simply having a letter popping through the letter box could create problems. Because we intend to require such a letter to be served by recorded delivery, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the problem that he sees arising is better dealt with in that way than by moving the period from three weeks to four weeks.
        Mr. Donald Stewart: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman can enlighten me about one matter raised by the Scottish Consumer Council. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the debt being accepted by the debtor or repudiated, in which case the procedure would follow. What happens if the debtor offers to pay in part? I gather from the council that that would not be acceptable—it has to be all or nothing.
        Mr. Dewar: I share a good deal of the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). He said, quite properly, that for most of us the starting point was the briefing from the Scottish Consumer Council. There is nothing wrong in that. It is one of the most valuable roles of informed groups, such as the council, that they alert hon. Members to matters giving rise to anxiety in lengthy, complicated and highly technical legislation. My attention having been drawn to it, I concluded that there was cause for the concern which the Scottish Consumer Council expressed, and that has not been removed by the Minister.
        I accept that the Government amendment which says that the notice under clause 7(1)(d) has to be sent by recorded delivery is a useful minor improvement, but it seems to me to be a little bit of conscience money and does not strike at the heart of what was canvassed by the Scottish Consumer Council.
        6.15 pm
        We are dealing here with any sum of more than £750. Although that might once have been a large sum, it is no longer so. As the council points out, it might well cover a wide range of consumer debts, and it is below the summary cause limit, for example, which puts it in some perspective. Furniture or a motor car—even an elderly, decrepit secondhand one—will cross the mark, allowing the purchaser to fall within the procedure envisaged in the clause.
        I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that the simplest way would not be to improve with minor changes such as the introduction of recorded delivery letters but to excise the subsection from the Bill. The reason is one based upon the psychology of the people likely to be involved. I am especially unsympathetic to the argument of the Solicitor-General for Scotland that we could not, for example, extend the period to four weeks because that would take us out of line with similar provisions which apply to companies.
        There is a world of difference between the approach of a company, even a small closed company, and that of the kind of person who might find himself in difficulty as a debtor under this provision. I accept that companies have to be on the same basis north and south of the border. It might be inconvenient if they were not, and company law has always been on a United Kingdom basis, but I see no reason why in Scotland we should not have a different approach to the individual debtor from that applied to a company.

        777
        Very often there are circumstances in which letters are winging out. many of them by recorded delivery no doubt, saying "Pay up. or else." There are people who are used to getting them and used to turning up at court, once they are summonsed, to minute their views on instalment payments or dissent. Even if a form is very carefully drafted, an enormous number of people who fortunately do not know what insolvency, liquidation or bankruptcy is will be asked to understand that they are about to be plunged into a legal process the consequences of which are very serious.
        Sequestration means that assets are taken over by a trustee. The debtor has to reveal all sorts of information about his personal and financial affairs to the trustee administering his assets. If he continues to work, there are implications about paying a proportion of his income to the trustees. It is quite out of the ordinary and very different from the action for debt which may be pursued under a summary cause. It is a difference of degree, and I do not believe that even a form drafted with personal care by the Solicitor-General for Scotland is likely to ensure that people know exactly what is happening and what the significance may be.
        I fear that in many cases a recorded delivery letter will be seen by the recipient as another attempt to recover money which he owes. He may not owe it, and he may not even realise the significance of having to dispute the debt at that stage. Thinking that he can deal with it as he would deal with a summary cause action for the normal form of recovering debt, he may find that he has given up the right to dispute the debt, and he is then on the slippery slope towards sequestration and in a difficult legal position with which he is not well qualified to deal.
        The fact that the letter has to be sent in the prescribed form—I am not sure how it is prescribed—
        Mr. Millan: By regulations.
        Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. However carefully it is prescribed, we are in that difficult position. There is a point of principle here because, as the Scottish Consumer Council pointed out, we are initiating a sequestration without a court decree stating that the debt is owed. That is dangerous. If the Solicitor-General for Scotland received a letter saying, "We shall sequestrate you and an apparent insolvency will be established if you do not within the specified period write and deny the debt," I have no doubt that he would know what to do. After all, he is a man of the law. But I can think of constituents of mine who would not understand. In the unlikely event of this machinery being used, they would find themselves slipping into a very hazardous position.
        The second line of argument which has been properly advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan is that it is unlikely in the event that this machinery will be used very often. If it is, the consequences could be unfortunate. However, an important point is that it is in no way illogical to argue that it is unnecessary to have this provision if it is unlikely to be used very often. There are all kinds of other ways in which a creditor could proceed against a debtor. It would in no way be a substantial infringement of the rights of a creditor to excise paragraph (d) from the Bill. It would remove the fears to which we have referred; fears which in a small number of cases could become very real.
        In an earlier debate the Solicitor-General for Scotland referred to the fact that the Scottish Law Commission was
        778
        carrying out a number of general reviews. One relates to the system of debt enforcement and diligence. If it decided to introduce changes which made the law of diligence in Scotland a little more humane and sensible, it would seem to be unwise to put paragraph (d) of clause 7(1) on the statute book. It might stand out as an unsatisfactory procedure which ran counter to the general reform which we hope will emerge from the lengthy review of the law of diligence which is being carried out by the Scottish Law Commission.
        This provision would endanger individual liberties and might be misunderstood. Therefore, I urge the Solicitor-General for Scotland to accept the admirably clear amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan. There is nothing wrong with its drafting; it merely asks for this provision to be deleted. In no sense would it prejudice the creditor, and in a small number of important cases the debtor would be protected if this provision were removed from the Bill.
        Mr. Millan: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that if this provision is left in the Bill. we shall ultimately regret it. Eventually it will have to be removed from the legislation. The arguments advanced by the Solicitor-General for Scotland were singularly unpersuasive. He made it sound as though it was for the good of the debtor that there should be a simplified procedure. He has completely misunderstood its effect. Recorded delivery is useful, but this paragraph means that the debtor is already under an obligation to give his denial by recorded delivery. It is astonishing that recorded delivery was never applied in the first instance to the demand. It puts the debtor on the same basis as the creditor in terms of recorded delivery.
        The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) raised an interesting point on denial—that even an offer to pay is not a denial if the money is owing and that under this paragraph it has no effect. There may be many occasions when there is no dispute that the money is owed, although the debtor may have difficulty in paying the money within the stated time. But that does not help him. Unless he says that the money is not owed, sequestration will be enforced. If I were advising a constituent who received a recorded delivery letter, I would say that he ought to tell a lie and write back saying, "I deny that the money is immediately payable." That would afford protection under this clause. That is absurd, but it is his only protection. He does not have to demonstrate that the debt is not immediately payable he merely has to say that it is not immediately payable, even if, when he says that, he knows that he is telling a lie. That cannot be right.
        As for the parallel with companies, that again is absurd. A trading company employs solicitors, accountants and other professional advisers. The Solicitor-General for Scotland looks sceptical, but a company will certainly employ accountants, because there is a statutory obligation to have an audit. Solicitors would also have been involved, when the company was set up, to draw up the articles of association. A trading company presumably takes matters of this kind seriously and would understand the implications, whereas an individual debtor may not fully understand them.
        In certain trades and businesses one finds that there are notoriously bad payers, in the sense that they do not pay their debts frequently. Farmers are a good example. Many perfectly reputable farmers who have been farming for

        779
        many years do not pay their debts within three weeks. However, if they do not pay their debts within three weeks their assets can be sequestrated. Either this paragraph will not be used, in which case it is unnecessary, or its use will mean that a number of farmers will suddenly find that their assets have been sequestrated. If their farms are in the constituencies of Conservative Members, this provision will have to be deleted. The Solicitor-General for Scotland smiles, but this is a serious point. If this provision were enforced against farmers, we would be unable to retain this provision in the law of Scotland.
        This point was not raised in Committee. Most hon. Members did not understand its full import. My original scepticism about the point made by the Scottish Consumer Council has given way on my part, and on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the right hon. Member for Western Isles, to real anxiety. I believe that if it should be used Ministers will regret having retained this paragraph.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I believe that this is a valuable way to constitute insolvency. I am at one with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) in believing that this provision will be used infrequently. It will not frighten farmers or anybody else into paying their bills if they are insolvent. All one is doing is setting up an elaborate procedure for sequestration. If that is what one wants to do, the simplest way to set about it is to take action to have the debt judicially constituted.
        The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that his constituents who might have small, outstanding debts would have recorded delivery letters suddenly popping through their letter boxes which would cause confusion. To that extent, it is important that there should be a lower limit of £750. Even in 1985 that is a very considerable sum of money to owe either to a group or to an individual, so the lower limit is important.
        I would point out to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) that if one was in this position one could not offer to pay the debt by instalments. Either the debt is owed, or it is not. That is the point that would be followed through if such an action were to be pursued, as the right hon. Member for Govan suggested that it should be pursued by taking it to the courts. A debtor might say, "I accept that I owe Mr. X £100, but I deny that I owe him £750." In that case, the process leading to sequestration would not be set in motion.
        6.30 pm
        We are introducing a novelty, but I do not share the anxieties expressed in the debate. Given our fruitful cooperation with the Scottish Consumer Council in the past, I hope that we shall be able to draw up a letter, in a prescribed form, leaving people in no doubt about what steps they should take if they accept that they owe a sum in excess of £750 or, if they deny that they owe the money, what steps they should take to avoid the prospect of sequestration.
        Amendment negatived.
        Amendments made: No. 4, in page 8, line 14, after third of', insert
        '(or debts the aggregate of which is)'.
        No. 5, in page 8, line 15, after 'debtor', insert by recorded delivery,'.
        No. 6, in page 8, line 16, after 'debt'. insert '(or debts)'.
        No. 7, in page 8, line 17, after 'its', insert '(or their)'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Clause 24

        ELECTION OF PERMANENT TRUSTEE
        Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 25, line 17, at end insert
        '(e) a person who is an associate of the debtor'.
        It seems strange that, now that we have in the Bill a definition of an associate, we should not, when dealing with those who are not eligible for election as a permanent trustee, exclude a person who is an associate of the debtor. It may seem obvious that such a person should not be appointed as a permanent trustee, but a number of other fairly obvious people who should not be so appointed, including the debtor himself, for example, are mentioned in the subsection.
        I intend the amendment to improve the Bill. Indeed, that has been the aim of all my amendments, but the Solicitor-General for Scotland has not seen them in that light. I hope that he will accept this one.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have to disappoint the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). However, before he gets too gloomy, I should add that he may find that I am in a more favourable frame of mind later. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment, but I think that it is undesirable and unnecessary.
        The amendment is undesirable because, having regard to the definition of an associate in new clause 2, it would prevent a person from acting as an insolvency practitioner in cases where there was no likelihood of any conflict of interest. That was the main reason why a similar provision was omitted from part I of the Insolvency Bill. The amendment would require persons who wished to be insolvency practitioners in a sequestration in Scotland to meet more stringent conditions than would be required in the case of a Scottish company liquidation or English bankruptcy proceedings.
        The amendment is unnecessary because persons proposing to act as insolvency practitioners under this Bill will be subject to the provisions in part I of the Insolvency Bill when that part comes into operation. As a result of an amendment made to the Insolvency Bill on Report last Thursday, regulations will be able to be made
        "prohibiting a person from acting as an insolvency practitioner in prescribed cases, being cases in which a conflict of interest will or may arise."
        In the interim period, pending the commencement of part I of the Insolvency Bill, consideration will be given, in consultation with the professional bodies, to including in regulations as one of the prescribed requirements for a person being qualified to act as an insolvency practitioner a requirement which, in effect, would prevent him from acting where there is likely to be a conflict of interest.
        I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to avoid such a conflict of interests. I hope that he will appreciate that, given the amendment that was made to the Insolvency Bill last week, his objection will be met.
        Mr. Millan: I am not persuaded, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 31

        VESTING OF ESTATE AT DATE OF SEQUESTRATION
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 11. in page 33, line 3, after 'bankruptcy', insert
        'or other similar orders in, or in connection with, bankruptcy proceedings'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take Government amendment No. 12.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The purpose of the amendment is to put beyond doubt the fact that the trustee's act and warrant will be registered in the appropriate register in the part of the United Kingdom where the estate is studied and to ensure that acquisitions for value of the bankrupt's estate prior to the registration will not be prejudiced by it. This savings provision virtually re-enacts the provision at the end of section 97(3) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 12, in page 33, line 6, leave out 'to the same effect' and insert
        ';but any right or interest acquired for value before the registration or publication shall not be prejudiced by the effect of the act and warrant or by such registration. or publication'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 33, line 20, leave out subsection (7).
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 18 and 27.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The amendments are designed to meet a point raised by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) in Committee about the unfairness of the provisions that vest immixed funds of a debtor and spouse in the permanent trustee, even though most of them belong to the debtor's spouse, and then have the spouse to rank as a postponed creditor in respect of her share. The amendments delete those provisions and will mean that the ownership of such funds will be a matter of fact to be determined, in the event of an unresolved dispute, by the court. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Govan for raising the matter.
        Mr. Millan: I am glad to acknowledge that the Solicitor-General for Scotland listened to my arguments in Committee and I am pleased that he has responded.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 32

        VESTING OF ESTATE, AND DEALINGS OF DEBTOR, AFTER SEQUESTRATION
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 34, line 6, leave out from 'may' to 'shall' in line 9 and insert
        ', after having regard to all the circumstances, determine a suitable amount to allow for—

        (a) alignment for the debtor; and

        (b) the debtor's relevant obligations;

        and if the debtor's income is in excess of the total amount so allowed the sheriff.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendments Nos. 15, 16, 21 and 22.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The amendments have as their common theme the need for consideration to be given in bankruptcy proceedings to the maintenance of the debtor and his family. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are intended to ensure that the court, when deciding the level of the income that should be left to him, will take account of the debtor's need to maintain himself and his family, including any spouse or former spouse and children even though they are not living with him.
        The amendments to clause 35 provide that in considering whether to recall an order awarding a capital payment or a transfer of property on divorce, the court must consider all the circumstances, and in particular the financial circumstances of the person from whom the payment or property would be recovered in the event of recall of the order.
        The purpose of amendment No. 16 is to make it clear that any creditor, even an alimentary creditor, whose debt would be discharged in the sequestration by virtue of clause 54 should not be able to do diligence in respect of that debt against any income vesting in the debtor after the date of his sequestration. As drafted, clause 32(4) does not prevent alimentary creditors, who can claim in the sequestration—and whose claim would be discharged by virtue of clause 54—from, as it were, "coming out" of the sequestration and doing diligence directly against the debtor's post-sequestration income. That would be an unfortunate result. The amendment prevents it from taking place.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 15, in page 34, line 10, at end insert—
        '(2A) The debtor's relevant obligations referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above are—

        (a) any obligation of aliment owned by him ("obligation of aliment" having the same meaning as in the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985);

        (b) any obligation of his to make a periodical allowance to a former spouse; but any amount allowed under that subsection for the relevant obligations need not be sufficient for compliance with a subsisting order or agreement as regards such aliment or periodical allowance.'.

        No. 16, in page 34, line 15, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
        '(4) Diligence in respect of a debt or obligation of which the debtor would be discharged under section 54 of this Act were he discharged under section 53 thereof shall not be competent against income vesting in him under subsection (1) above.'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move manuscript amendment No. 75, in page 35, line 14, leave out from "dealing" to "is" in line 16.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take amendment No. 17, in page 35, line 14, leave out "before" and insert
        'within a period of 3 months commencing on'.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Following the tabling of amendment No. 17 by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), we have given further consideration to the period after the date of sequestration within which certain transactions between a debtor and a third party would be protected.
        The hon. Member for Garscadden is probably aware that the Scottish Law Commission gives no reason for its

        783
        view in paragraph 11.38 of its report that the protection for such dealings, which at present is unlimited, should continue only until the date of publication of the award of sequestration in the Edinburgh Gazette. It would appear, however, that it might have been influenced by the thought that publication in the Edinburgh Gazette should be taken as notice to the world of sequestration. That is not correct either as a matter of fact or of law.
        We have accordingly concluded that there should be no time limit upon the protection afforded to such dealings and I have tabled a manuscript amendment to this effect. This would appear to be preferable to the amendment extending the period for three months because it is equally arbitrary to have a three-month period as to have the period as at present specified in the Bill.
        I appreciate, of course, the argument that it is important to avoid any fraudulent misuse of this period to the detriment of the creditors, but having looked carefully at the provision, I am convinced that the safeguards contained in it are more than adequate. Certainly section 107 of the 1913 Act which is similar in many ways to what we are now proposing has not, to my knowledge, caused any difficulty in the 72 years that it has been operating.
        I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garscadden and I hope that he thinks that the Government amendment is desirable. I suspect that he chose the three-month period because he did not believe that he would be successful in achieving any time limit.
        Mr. Dewar: The Minister is partly correct. I am grateful to him for tabling his manuscript amendment which goes further than my amendment. I enjoyed his modest knocking of the Edinburgh Gazette and its role in the world. I do not know who edits that august publication, but the Solicitor-General's view was probably realistic.
        I agree that any period of protection would be arbitrary and that it is better to remove the restriction and to leave protection to be dealt with by clause 32(8)(b) which states
        "the person dealing with the debtor was.… unaware of the sequestration and had.… no reason to believe that the debtor's estate had been sequestrated or was the subject of sequestration proceedings."
        That means that in a bona fide case the person will be completely protected. That is a sensible approach which has worked well for many years under the law of Scotland. It is a good amendment, even if it had to be scrawled in quill pen at the last moment by one of the Solicitor-General for Scotland's aides.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 33

        LIMITATIONS ON VESTING
        Amendment made: No. 18, in page 35, line 39 leave out
        'other than such money as is mentioned in section 31(7) of this Ace.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Clause 34

        GRATUITOUS ALIENATIONS
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 37, line 6 leave out from 'that' to second 'or' in line 7 and insert
        'immediately, or at any other time, after the alienation the debtor's assets were greater than his liabilities.'.
        784
        The amendment makes it clear what is meant by absolute solvency. It is in line with existing case law based on the Bankruptcy Act 1621, which this Bill replaces
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 35

        RECALLING OF ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF CAPITAL SUM ON DIVORCE
        Amendments made: No. 21, in page 38, line 20 leave out
        ', after having regard to all the circumstances of the case,'.
        No. 22, in page 38, line 27 at end insert—
        ': Provided that before making an order under this subsection the court shall have regard to all the circumstances including, without prejudice to the generality of this proviso, the financial, and other, circumstances (in so far as made known to the court) of the person against whom the order would be made.'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Clause 38

        TAKING POSSESSION OF ESTATE BY PERMANENT TRUSTEE
        Amendment made: No. 23, in page 42, line 5 after 'Act,', insert
        'and subject to section [Power of permanent trustee in relation to the debtor's family home] of this Act,',—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Clause 39

        MANAGEMENT AND REALISATION OF ESTATE
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move manuscript amendment No. 76, in page 42, line 34, leave out "subsections (6) and (7)" and insert "subsection (6)"
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 24 and 33.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The manuscript amendment is consequential on amendment No. 24 and comes immediately before it.
        Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the amendment is only technical, but we do not have a copy of it. Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland will explain it. I understand from the noises behind me that no one else has seen it.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland will help the House by explaining a little further.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I had hoped to move quickly since there is nothing mysterious about the amendment, which reads
        "page 42, line 34, leave out 'subsections (6) and (7)' and insert 'subsection (6)'."
        I am sure that the hon. Member for Garscadden agrees that the amendment is desirable and necessary.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 24, in page 44, line 5, leave out subsection (7).—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Clause 40

        PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF SPOUSE AGAINST ARRANGEMENTS INTENDED TO DEFEAT THEM
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 45, line 16, after 'Act,', insert

        785
        'as amended by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 26.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These are drafting amendments.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 26, in page 45, line 18, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the said Act of 1981'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Clause 50

        ORDER OF PRIORITY IN DISTRIBUTION
        Amendment made: No. 27, in page 53, line 9, leave out
        'or a spouse's right to money vesting in the permanent trustee by virtue of section 31(7) of this Act'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Clause 53
        AUTOMATIC DISCHARGE AFTER 3 YEARS
        Amendment made: No. 28, in page 58, line 30, leave out 'above'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      Clause 66

        GENERAL OFFENCES BY DEBTOR ETC
        6.45 pm
        Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 66, line 38, at end insert 'or any individual creditor'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government manuscript amendments Nos. 73 and 74.
        Mr. Dewar: Fortunately, the amendments need not detain us long because the Solicitor-General for Scotland has decided to fall into line with admirable advice that he has been given and table more skilfully drafted amendments which have the same effect. Clause 66(7) states:
        "A debtor who is engaged in trade or business shall be guilty of an offence if … he pledges or disposes of … any property which he has obtained on credit and has not paid for unless he shows that he did not intend to prejudice his creditors."
        It is suggested that a car might be bought on hire purchase and that the debtor might sell that car and use the proceeds to satisfy some of his creditors. He would not act in any sense to their prejudice, but would specifically prejudice the hire purchase company which would lose the car and the security which it represents.
        The amendment makes it clear that the phrase "prejudice his creditors" covers the prejudice of any individual creditor. The Minister proposes a different solution in his manuscript amendment No. 74, which includes the words
        "references to intent to prejudice creditors shall include references to intent to prejudice an individual creditor."
        That is more elegant, but it has the same intent and I am pleased with it.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The purpose of the amendment is to prevent a debtor who has unlawfully disposed of goods on hire purchase from claiming that the disposal, far from prejudicing the general body of creditors, has benefited them at the expense of the unfortunate creditor involved in the hire purchase agreement.
        786
        Such a case is unlikely to arise frequently, but I accept that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for tabling his amendment. However, acceptance of the amendment in its present form might permit the debtor to establish a defence if he shows either that he did not intend to prejudice the general body of creditors or that he did not intend to prejudice any one of them.
        My amendment makes it clear that the debtor must establish that he intended to prejudice neither the general body of the creditors nor any one of them. A similar point might also arise in connection with clause 66(2) and 66(6). The manuscript amendments cover those sections.
        Mr. Dewar: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made: No. 73, in page 67, line 31, after 'section' insert '(a)'.
        No. 74, in page 67, line 33, at end insert—
        '(b) references to intent to prejudice creditors shall include references to intent to prejudice an individual creditor.'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Clause 72

        INTERPRETATION
        Amendments made: No. 30, in page 70, line 15, leave out
        'means such person as may be prescribed'
        and insert
        'shall be construed in accordance with section [Meaning of "associate"] of this Act;'.
        No. 31, in page 71, line 7, at end insert
        'being, in accordance with section 2 of the Insolvency Act 1985 (qualifications of insolvency practitioners), so qualified:
        Provided that, until the coming into force of that section, the expression shall instead mean'.
        No. 32, in page 71, line 45, at end insert—
        '(5) Any reference in this Act to an enactment relating to the limitation of actions shall not include any such enactment which implements or gives effect to any international agreement or obligation. '.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Clause 73

        AMENDMENTS, REPEALS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
        Amendment made: No. 33, in page 73, line 10, at end insert—
        '(6A) Where a debtor whose estate is sequestrated after the commencement of this subsection is liable, by virtue of a transaction entered into before that date, to pay royalties or a share of the profits to any person in respect of any copyright or interest in copyright comprised in the sequestrated estate, section 102 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913 (trustee's powers in relation to copyright) shall apply in relation to the permanent trustee as it applied before its repeal in relation to a trustee in bankruptcy under the said Act of 1913.'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 73, line 24, at end insert—
        '() Unless the context otherwise requires, any reference in any enactment or document to a person's estate being sequestrated under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913 shall be construed as, or as including, a reference to its being sequestrated under this Act; and analogous references shall be construed accordingly.'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments No. 48 and 52.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These are purely drafting amendments.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Schedule 3

        PREFERRED DEBTS
        Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 79, line 12, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 36 to 38, and the following amendments: No. 39, in page 79, line 29, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
        No. 40, in page 79, line 38, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
        No. 41, in page 79, line 43, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
        Government amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
        Mr. Millan: The amendment deals with the question of preferred debts. I intend to say little about this, not because the matter is not of considerable importance—it is one of the most important matters in the Bill—but because we dealt with it in Committee and again on the Report stage of the Insolvency Bill last Thursday.
        Whatever the quality of the arguments that I put forward, the Solicitor-General will simply say that we must be consistent with the Insolvency Bill and that he cannot accept my amendments. I want to put on record that I am glad that the Government have accepted their defeat on VAT and reduced the preference from 12 to six months. I shall not embarrass the hon. and learned Gentleman by quoting back at him some of the things that he said in Committee about VAT and PAYE. However, it is not logical that the Government have accepted the reduction in preference on VAT from 12 to six months, yet are not willing to accept the reduction in preference on PAYE and national insurance contributions—which would be the effect of my amendment. I know that the Government will not accept it because they turned down a similar amendment on the Report stage of the Insolvency Bill.
        It is a pity that, having given way more or less gracefully on VAT, the Government have not accepted the logic of the matter and reduced the preference on PAYE. I do not hold out any hope that there will be a conversion at this late stage, unless the Solicitor-General takes a bold step and says, "I do not care what happened with the Insolvency Bill, this is such a powerful argument that I shall accept it." On past behaviour, I do not think that he will do that.
        I simply record my disappointment that the Government have not accepted the logic of the position and reduced preference in a way that ultimately will be to the benefit of small firms, which are the ordinary creditors. For a Government who are anxious to say how much they support small firms and want to help them in every possible way to deny themselves the opportunity to give them help by reducing Government preference in bankruptcy is, to say the least, unfortunate.
        I wish to place on record that I have been consistently trying to reduce the ravages of Government in bankruptcies in favour of small firms and ordinary creditors.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I would have been quite happy if the right hon. Gentleman had referred to what I had to say; I doubt whether anyone else would have been at this stage.
        The purpose of the Government amendments is twofold. First, they reduce the preference period for VAT debts to six months, bringing the Bill into line—as the right hon. Gentleman appreciates—with the Insolvency Bill. Secondly, they clarify the six months period relating to VAT charged on supply of goods and services made prior to the date of sequestration, even though, because of the VAT accounting arrangements, payment need not at that time have been made to Customs and Excise. A similar clarificatory amendment has been inserted in the Insolvency Bill.
        As the right hon. Gentleman said, during the course of the two Bills at various stages, and in another place, the matter of Crown preference was discussed exhaustively. A position has been adopted in the Insolvency Bill, and it appears that, at this stage, there is little purpose in pursuing the matter further.
        Amendment negatived.
        Amendments made: No. 36, in page 79, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 24 and insert 'is referable to'.
        No. 37, in page 79, line 24, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
        No. 38, in page 79, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert 'the relevant date'.
        No. 42, in page 80, line 30, at end insert—
        '5A. So much of any amount which—

        (a) is ordered, whether before or after the relevant date. to be paid by the debtor under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985; and

        (b) is so ordered in respect of a default made by the debtor before that date in the discharge of his obligations under that Act,

        as does not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.'.
        No. 43, in page 80, line 41, leave out
        'in respect of which any value added tax is due'
        and insert
        'to which any value added tax is attributable'.
        No. 44, in page 81, line 1, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
        No. 45, in page 82, line 13, leave out
        '(5) Regulations under paragraph 5'
        and insert—

        PREFERRED DEBTS
          'Transitional Provisions
          9. Regulations under paragraph 5 or 5A'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      Schedule 5

        VOLUNTARY TRUST DEEDS FOR CREDITORS
        Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 88, line 34, at end insert—
        '7A. In the case of a trust deed to which paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Schedule apply, the trustee shall, not later than 28 days after final distribution to creditors of the estate which falls to be distributed under the trust deed registered under paragraph 5(D) of this Schedule, send to the accountant in bankruptcy a certificate that the estate has been distributed in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed together with a statement in the prescribed form as to the realisation of the estate and its distribution.
        7B(1) Where a trustee under a trust deed to which paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Schedule apply has, in terms of that trust deed, obtained a discharge from the acceding creditors and from the debtor, he may give notice of his discharge to each qualified creditor who has not acceded to the trust deed.

        789
        (2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) below, where notice has been given in terms of sub-paragraph (1) above then the creditors who did not accede to the trust deed shall be deemed to be parties to the discharge of the trustee.
        (3) A qualified creditor who has not acceded to the trust deed may within 28 days of the date of the notice given in terms of sub-paragraph (1) above apply to the court for an order setting aside his deemed participation in the discharge of the trustee.
        (4) The court shall make such an order if, but only if, it is satisfied that the conduct of the trustee has been such as to preclude a deemed discharge from the creditor concerned.'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will discuss Government amendment No. 47.
        Mr. Millan: I shall not spend a great deal of time discussing this amendment. It deals with a matter that I raised in Committee. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland drew attention to the fact that schedule 5 did not contain a provision for the discharge of the trustee in dealing with the voluntary trust deeds for creditors. I tabled the amendment to try to deal with that position. The Government's amendment is, no doubt, better drafted and I shall be happy to see it adopted.
        I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for responding to the point that I made in Committee.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the right hon. Gentleman indicated, there is no substantial difference between the two amendments. The Government amendment covers one or two minor points of detail not covered by the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. On that basis, and that basis alone, I ask the House to accept our amendment.
        Mr. Millan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendment made: No. 47, in page 88, line 36, at end insert—
        '9. Where the trustee under a protected trust deed has made the final distribution of the estate among the creditors, he shall, not more than 28 days after the final distribution, send to the Accountant in Bankruptcy for registration in the register of insolvencies—

        (a) a statement in the prescribed form indicating how the estate was realised and distributed; and

        (b) a certificate to the effect that the distribution was in accordance with the trust deed.

        10. Where the trustee under a protected trust deed has obtained a discharge from the creditors who have acceded to the trust deed he shall forthwith give notice of the discharge—

        (a) by sending the notice by recorded delivery to every creditor known to him who has not acceded to the trust deed; and

        (b) by sending the notice to the Accountant in Bankruptcy who shall register the fact of the discharge in the register of insolvencies, and, except where the court makes an order under paragraph 12 below, the sending of such notice to a creditor who has not acceded to the trust deed shall be effective to make the discharge binding upon that creditor.

        Creditors not acceding to protected trust deed
        11. A creditor who has not acceded to a protected trust deed may, not more than 28 days after notice has been sent under paragraph 10 above, apply to the court for an order under paragraph 12 below.
        12. Where, on an application by a creditor under paragraph 11 above, the court is satisfied (on grounds other than those on which a petition under paragraph 7(1)(b) above was or could have been presented by that creditor) that the intromissions of the trustee under the proteced trust deed with the estate of the debtor have been so unduly prejudicial to that creditor's claim that he should not be bound by the discharge it may order that he shall not be so bound.
        13. Where the court makes an order under paragraph 12 above, the clerk of court shall send a copy of the order to—
        790

        (a) the trustee; and

        (b) the Accountant in Bankruptcy who shall register the copy of the order in the register of insolvencies.'.[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Schedule 7
      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND RE-ENACTMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 94, line 12, at end insert—
      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND RE-ENACTMENTS

        'The Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 (c. 35)
        In paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 3 ("insolvent" for purposes of standard condition as to default), for the words "163 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913"' there shall be substituted the words "11A of the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Act 1889".'.'
        No. 49, in page 94, line 46, leave out '22' and insert '26'.
        No. 50, in page 95, line 13, leave out '22' and insert '26'.
        No. 51, in page 95, line 18, leave out 'and' and insert—
        '(iiA) in paragraph 2(2) for the words "in a case where the relevant event took place on or after the day of the passing of the Social Security Act 1985" there were substituted the words 'in any other case"; and.'
        No. 52, in page 96, line 20, at end insert—

        'The Value Added Tax Act 1983 (c. 55)
        In section 22(4)(a)(ii) ("insolvency" for purposes of refund of tax in cases of bad debts), for the words "163 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913" there shall be substituted the words "11A of the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Act 1889".'.
        No. 53, in page 97, line 2, after 'applies', insert
        'and—
        (a) the winding up of a company has commenced,'
        No. 54, in page 97, line 3, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.
        No. 55, in page 97, line 4, leave out '(a)' and insert '(i)'
        No. 56, in page 97, line 5, after 'the' insert 'date of such'.
        No. 57, in page 97, line 6. leave out
        'of the winding up of the company'.
        No. 58, in page 97, line 7, leave out '(b)' and insert '(ii)'.
        No. 59, in page 97, line 7, at end insert—
        ';
        (b) an administration order is in force in relation to a company, an alienation by the company is challengeable by the administrator.'.
        No. 60, in page 97, line 15, leave out from '(b)', to 'the' in line 17.
        No. 61, in page 97, line 18, leave out '(c)' and insert '(b)'
        No. 62, in page 97, line 26, leave out 'the commencement of and insert
        'the date on which—
        (i)'.
        No. 63, in page 97, line 27, after 'company', insert
        'commences: or
        (ii) as the case may be, the administration order is made'.
        No. 64, in page 97, line 29, leave out 'commencement' and insert 'date'.
        No. 65, in page 97, line 30, after '(4)', insert 'to'.
        No. 66, in page 97, line 38, after 'liquidator', insert
        'and, after the coming into force of Chapter III of Part II of the Insolvency Act 1985, an administrator appointed thereunder'.
        No. 67, in page 97, line 38, at end insert—
        '(5) In subsections (1) to (3) above, any reference to an administrator or to an administration order—

        (a) shall be construed in accordance with Chapter III of Part II of the Insolvency Act 1985; and

        (b) shall be of no effect until the coming into force of that Chapter.

        (6) This section extends to Scotland only.'.
        No. 68, in page 97, line 39, leave out
        'In the winding up of a company registered in Scotland'.
        No. 69, in page 97, line 41 leave out from 'preferences)' to end of line 19 on page 98 and insert
        'applies for the purposes of this Act as it applies for the purposes of that Act but as if—

        (a) for any reference to a debtor there is substituted a reference to a company;

        (b) in subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) to (c) there are substituted the words "the commencement of the winding up of the company or the making of an administration order in relation to the company.";

        (c) in subsection (4) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there are substituted the following paragraphs—

        "(a) in the case of a winding up—

        (i)any creditor who is a creditor by virtue of a debt incurred on or before the date of commencement of the winding up; or

        (ii) the liquidator; and

        (b) in the case of an administration order, the administrator.";

        (d) in subsection (6), for the words from the beginning to "1889" there are substituted the words "A liquidator and an administrator"; and

        (e) for subsection (7) there is substituted the following subsection—

        "(7) This section shall be construed as one with Part XX of the Companies Act 1985; and subsection (5) of section 615A of that Act shall apply in relation to the foregoing provisions of this section as it applies in relation to subsections (1) to (3) of that section.".
        (2) This section applies to Scotland only.'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland]

    Schedule 8

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 70, in page 102, line 13, column 3 at beginning insert 'In'.
      No. 71, in page 102, line 19, column 3 at beginning insert 'In'.
      No. 72, in page 102, line 58, at end insert—

      '1985 c. 17.

      The Reserve (Safeguard Employment) 1985.

      Forces of Act

      In section 13, the word "—(a)"; the words from "or, (b)" to "estate,"; the word"—(i)"; and the words from 'or, (ii)" to "1913,".'.

      6.59 pm
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have made some significant changes to the Bill during its passage, and I am grateful to the many professional bodies for their assistance.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Yorkshire Water Authority Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Conal Gregory: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has been in embryonic form for a number of years. The works proposed in the measure would alleviate flooding from the River Foss, which occurs at its confluence with the River Ouse close to the city centre of York. The River Foss is a left-bank tributary of the River Ouse, joining it some 1,100 m downstream of Lendal bridge.
  Flooding from the River Foss is linked directly with flood levels in the River Ouse. The River Foss has been canalised, and within its urban reaches has sufficient capacity to pass one in 100 year flood flows. However, with high levels in the River Ouse, water simply backs up the River Foss.
  A similar and related problem occurs with the Tang Hall and Osbaldwick Beck, which, until the late 18th century, were tributaries to the River Foss, but which are now in culvert to the River Ouse, with high level overflows to the Foss.
  In recent years, serious flooding has occurred in York—in 1968, 1978 and 1982—the flooding in January 1982 being the worst since 1947 and having an estimated return period of 80 years. In the January 1982 floods, 78 domestic properties and 64 industrial and commercial premises were inundated for two or three days. As a result of cleaning-up operations, day-to-day commercial and domestic routines were affected for considerably longer than that. I recall the great concern of my constituents for months, indeed years, after that flooding, and the special help of the lord mayor of York's alleviation plan to assist individual constituents.
  Traffic in the flooded area was totally disrupted and, as the floods affected the inner ring road, the effects of the disruption were felt over a much wider area. Inevitably, the flooding severely limited the deployment of the services used in the emergency and diverted them from their normal duties. Those services were stretched to their limit.
  The feasibility study which the Yorkshire water authority commissioned following the 1982 floods recommended, as the preferred solution, the construction of a flood barrier in the River Foss, with a pump station. It has the merit that because the Foss level can be controlled by pumping the run-off from the Foss catchment while the barrier is closed, the operation of the storm sewer and beck overflows will not be inhibited by high River Foss levels, as they would have been under the alternative proposals which were then considered. The estimated cost of the recommended solution was also the lowest of those investigated.
  The feasibility study reported that the proposed barrier should be sited downstream of the Castle Mills bridge so that no modification of existing upstream defences would be necessary, and gave as the recommended gate location a position immediately upstream of Blue bridge. It further stated that the most appropriate type of barrier would be a turn-over lift gate, its detailed appearance being subject to approval by York city council as the planning authority.

  793
  As for the pumping station, the feasibility study mentioned that a substantial building would be required if conventional axial flow vertically-mounted land drainage pumps were used and that an underground pumping station would, therefore, be preferable. While giving details of such an arrangement of an underground pumping station midway between Blue bridge and Castle Mills bridge, the feasibility study stated:
  "the layout and location of this station remain flexible at present being the subject of both technical and planning considerations."
  Hon. Members will understand if, at this point in my remarks, I slake my thirst with some Yorkshire water authority produce.
  In addition to the barrier and pumping station, the Bill provides for a number of necessary additional works. These are a flood protection wall and access road, works Nos. 3 and 4, running north from the pumping station; a new control structure with sluice gate, work No. 5, in substitution for the existing control structure at Castle Mills lock; a new pipe, work No. 6, in substitution for an existing pipe to take waters in that pipe above the barrier; the raising of Tower street, work No. 7; and a new car park access and adjacent flood wall, works Nos. 8 and 9, on St. George's field.
  The principal reason why Yorkshire water authority cannot rely on existing general powers to implement the scheme is that it involves interference with navigation. No general powers are available for this purpose and, accordingly, it is necessary in each case to obtain the requisite powers by way of private legislation. Recent examples are the Severn-Trent Water Authority Act 1983 in respect of flood prevention in the valley of the River Soar, and the Southern Water Authority Act 1982, which was for a new control structure with lock gates on the River Rother.
  In addition, water authorities' general powers are insufficient or of doubtful application in a number of detailed respects. The necessary powers proposed in the Bill for the management and operation of the barrier and pumping station are an example, general powers not being available for the purpose. Also, with a scheme of this nature, the inclusion of all necessary powers in one Bill overcomes any difficulties that may be encountered in the interaction of the authority's several different general powers and can result in a considerable saving in time and expense in implementing a scheme.
  Early in 1985 a number of local residents voiced objections concerning the environmental impact of the proposed works, particularly in respect of the effect on the Georgian riverside promenade known as New Walk terrace, and it became apparent that there was genuine concern over that. In the light of the objections then raised, I organised a public local meeting. Because of the views then expressed, the water authority has agreed to propose amendments in Committee to provide for the proposed barrier and pumping station to be relocated within the limits of the deviation for those works and away from New Walk.
  It is understood that the proposed modifications meet the objections that have been raised, and the water authority has now applied and obtained planning permission for the revised scheme. As proposed to be modified, the scheme remains consistent with the recommendations of the feasibility study commissioned by the water authority.
  794
  The miscellaneous general powers that are proposed are contained in part IV of the Bill. The majority of these reflect powers conferred on other water authorities in recent years by local Acts, and this part of the Bill in particular was the subject of detailed prior consultation with the relevant Government Departments.
  Parts I, II, IV and V concern the flood relief scheme, and I shall outline the principal provisions. Part II contains the necessary powers for land acquisition, and these provisions are, in the main, well precedented. Clause 14 contains the description of the works to be authorised. with powers for ancillary works contained in clause 15, and a general power in clause 16 to deviate within the limits shown on the plans.
  Clause 17 provides for alterations in paths likely to be affected, and clauses 18 to 20 contain the common additional provisions regarding interference with highways generally. Clauses 21 to 27 provide various necessary powers for operations in and the control of the rivers affected and, again, are closely based on precedent, the power to give directions under clause 24 to vessels being modelled on similar provisions conferred on harbour authorities.
  Clause 28 ensures that the specific powers are without prejudice to the application of the authority's general powers, and that is a common provision in measures of this character. Clauses 29 to 33 provide for the manner in which the barrier, pumping station and sluice gate may be operated, and provide penalties for interference with them. The restrictions upon the use of the barrier and pumping station are necessary in the interests of navigation.
  Clause 34 provides, as necessary, that restrictions contained in existing local legislation affecting the Rivers Ouse and Foss do not operate to prevent the application of the powers in the Bill.
  Part V contains general and administrative provisions including, in clause 47, the requisite adaptation of the Land Drainage Act 1976 to enable central Government grants to be available and the limitation, in clause 50, of the deemed planning permission available under the general development order. Clause 50 and a number of other clauses bearing on the city council's functions are likely to be subject to restrictive amendments to be agreed with the council in due course. Amendments to effect the proposed alteration of works are required to a number of clauses, and most notably clause 14, in which the description of work needs to be modified to accord with the revised scheme. In addition. the revised scheme calls for restrictive limits of deviation for the altered works, the deletion of references to the towing path on the east bank of the River Ouse and to New Walk in clause 17 and the omission of most other references to the River Ouse, which, in the main, will no longer be affected. All the requisite amendments for the revised scheme will be proposed by the promoters in Committee.
  The miscellaneous clauses are contained in part IV and have been the subject of prior consultation with relevant Departments, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  I shall refer to Calderdale and its sewage works. The instruction in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) is as follows:
  "After Second Reading of the Yorkshire Water Authority Bill, to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to amend Clause 36 to require the Promoters to provide and

  795
  maintain a sludge main which will take out of Calderdale the sludge now tipped, treated or dried at the Low fields site and at the Press House at North Dean."
  It is apparent from the steps that I have outlined and from the letters to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that the authority is committed to solving the problem of odour and fly nuisance from its sewage works at North Dean and Lowfields as a matter of urgency. In the short term, the authority is treating the sludge at the North Dean works with lime to reduce smells and has found an alternative site to Lowfields to which the sludge can be taken. A planning application has been submitted for this site. It is a remote and disused reservoir named Coldacre, which could quickly be brought into use once permission is given.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that a planning application has been submitted. What is his estimate of the likelihood of that application being approved? I represent an adjoining constituency which would be affected by the application, if granted. It is my understanding that the chances of its being granted are nil.
  Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I cannot presume upon the planning decisions of local authorities. I was seeking to deal with the principle behind the instruction of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me for a little longer, I may be able to throw some more light on the issue.
  If planning permission is refused, further attempts will be made to find an alternative site. Given the topography of Calderdale, that may be difficult.
  The proposed instruction is mandatory and would require clause 36 to be amended to oblige the authority to make a pipeline to take the sludge out of Calderdale. The instruction does not state where the sludge main is to go and, in the absence of an alternative site being available, this presents a difficulty. Some of the sludge might not be capable of being transported by a sludge main. Apart from these practical difficulties, and the absence of available finance to implement the instruction, the passage of the instruction would pre-empt the studies that are now being undertaken by the Yorkshire water authority and would preclude the adoption of the best solution identified by those studies.
  The passage of the instruction would present the water authority with real difficulties in continuing the promotion of the Bill. If the authority—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the instruction is out of order and that he must not go into detail.
  Mr. Gregory: I shall not talk further about the instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to your kindness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that if necessary I can respond to any hon. Members who subsequently direct their remarks to the instruction.
  I have set out the basis of the Bill, and it remains to be said that the people of York have been waiting for decades for such a measure and have suffered quite considerably in the process. I hope that the Bill will have the support of the House.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Roy Galley: The Bill does not relate solely to flood prevention in York, as it contains a variety of wide-ranging general powers which the Yorkshire water authority is seeking from Parliament.
  My original concern stemmed from these accretions to the already extensive powers of the authority. However, I was persuaded eventually that the powers were largely necessary and that there was considerable precedent for them.
  The Bill is presented at a time when there are sewage disposal and treatment problems in the Halifax area and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson). The Calderdale area is served by a complex of sewage works at Salterhebble, Copley and North Dean. These extensive developments are in close proximity to residential property and the odour nuisance has been to varying degrees a problem in the area for decades.
  When the problems came to the fore in the mid-1970s the odours were attributed to the manufacture of humus-based products. A series of measures was taken to mask the odours such as the spraying of scented chemicals. However, that did not overcome the problem. The production of the humus was then discontinued, but that did not result in a significant reduction or elimination of the odours.
  The smells have continued and they are more than the slightly earthy smells which one would usually associate with any sewage treatment operation. The difficulties that arose in 1983 were exacerbated by the decision of the water authority to compost in the area the sludge which is the end product of the treatment process. A pressed cake is produced at the press house at the North Dean works. This is currently transferred for composting to another site at Lowfields, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley. This gives rise to further foul odours and considerable problems of fly infestation in an area which is very near to residential areas.
  Over the years the water authority has sought to reduce the odours by a variety of measures, and principally by the installation of new machinery for the addition of lime to the sludge. However, smells continue.
  There have been further plans, which I hope will be implemented shortly, to introduce an oxygen injection process at the Copley plant. This may help, but no one can be sure that it will solve the problem. As a result of this history of very serious problems which have continued for a long time, and which have been of great concern to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley and I decided that our constituents had suffered from these problems for too long. I therefore added to the Bill an instruction which would mean taking sludge from the area of Calderdale. I hope that it is appropriate to explain the reasoning behind it, although the instruction is out of order.
  The objective is to take the sludge by a sludge main to a more appropriate location where the sludge can be properly treated. The Yorkshire water authority's powers in respect of sludge mains are set out fully in clause 36. After detailed discussion with the authority, I accept that the process of removing sludge from the area by means of a sludge main is only one of the options available for dealing with a serious sewerage problem. The options

  797
  include an entirely new processing method and covering in parts of the sewage works. These options could be more effective. It seems reasonable to allow the water authority to consider the various options and details and produce a strategy for dealing with the problem.
  What is vitally important is that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley know that the studies will be completed in a relatively short time and that the solution will be implemented on a priority basis. They cannot be expected to suffer for a further few more decades as they have suffered in the past.
  Accordingly, on 17 June, the deputy chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, Mr. J. P. Coverdale, who has been extremely helpful to me and to my hon. Friends throughout the discussions, wrote to me. His letter is headed:
  "Calderdale Sewage Disposal Strategy including Halifax and Lowfields."
  It says:
  "The Authority recognises that a long-term solution to the problem of odours and fly nuisance from its sewage works in the Calder Valley must be found urgently and is now preparing a sludge strategy and carrying out local studies of sewage works in the Calder Valley which will be completed within 12 months.
  Immediately after completion the preferred solutions will be considered by the Authority and implemented on a priority basis as soon as reasonably practicable."
  It is important that these points are recorded. On that basis, one would hope that future officials of the Yorkshire water authority would not be able to gainsay what are regarded by me and my constituents as binding commitments on the part of the authority—commitments that a way will be found to solve the problem, that the solution will be implemented quickly and that we in Halifax and Calder Valley can look forward confidently to the removal of this nuisance.
  It has never been my intention to impede flood prevention work in York, although some, for their own devious reasons, have sought to distort and misrepresent the situation. Having received adequate assurances from the Yorkshire water authority about sewage disposal and treatment in Calderdale, I shall not oppose the Bill.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: I support the Second Reading because it is important to the people of York in particular and Yorkshire in general that progress by the Yorkshire water authority in alleviating flooding in York be allowed to continue. It is also important to ensure that the provisions of former water undertakings be continued, and the water authority be given the authority of the past local water boards to continue certain protections and services for the people of Yorkshire. There is much that I do not agree with in what the Yorkshire water authority does, but on this occasion I believe that we should support Second Reading.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) spoke about the future development of the Calderdale area. It is important to inform the House that a great deal of energy and expense has been put into the Calderdale area by the Yorkshire water authority to alleviate the difficulties suffered by the constituents of the hon. Member for Halifax. The hon. Gentleman accepted that in what he said about the letter from the deputy chairman of the Yorkshire water authority. A great deal of concern about alleviating the difficulties of the people in Calderdale has been
  798
  expressed. I hope that the Bill will have a smooth passage, as it will ensure that we do not have the repercussions from flooding in York that we have had over decades.
  Some of the areas that are flooded suffer badly. The people who have to put up with this disturbance should be given an assurance by the House that every effort will be made to help the Yorkshire water authority to prevent that flooding. As the hon. Member for Halifax will not challenge the Bill, I ask the House to give the Bill its blessing so that we can get the business required by the Yorkshire water authority through. It can then get on with the job of alleviating the flooding and providing the necessary services for Yorkshire.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I support the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I do not want the House to interfere with what the Yorkshire water authority does. I am not concerned with the Calderdale area, although I respect the concern of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). However, I am concerned that the Yorkshire water authority should not find its tasks made more difficult because of anything that the House has done. We should support the authority in its tasks of providing a decent water supply and adequate sewage treatment in Yorkshire.
  I am particularly concerned about sewage provision and water supply in Rawmarsh in my constituency. I have been satisfied in correspondence with the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority in the past few weeks that it has plans to deal fairly soon with these problems. I do not wish the problems to be exacerbated by any delay for which the House could be held responsible. I hope that, as further retrenchment appears attractive to the Treasury, there will be no discouragement of the water authority from fulfilling the plans about which we have been informed in the past few weeks.
  I trust that the Government will not merely accept and facilitate the Bill but will make sure that the water authority lacks neither resources nor the approvals necessary to maintain adequate sewage provision, a decent water supply and proper progress in cleaning water courses and rivers in our region.
  7.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the Yorkshire water authority. My Department has no outstanding points on the Bill and it is acceptable to us. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is very much aware of the Bill and is content with its proposals. The flood prevention scheme will benefit art urban area and is needed to protect part of York from flooding.
  It may be helpful to the House if I touch on the local issue of the sewage works in Halifax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) described in more detail than I am aware of.
  Water authorities discuss their plans with sponsor Departments—the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—and Ministers take account of their needs when setting the financial parameters within which they operate, and this point was well taken by the hon. Member for Wentworth

  799
  (Mr. Hardy). However, within the limits it is for the authority to set out reasonable priorities and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Yorkshire water authority is doing so.
  Both my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) have demonstrated how constituency interests can be properly advanced. On behalf of his constituents, my hon. Friend the Member for York initially made some criticisms of the plans. In consultation with the water authority, he got the plans made better and I congratulate him on that.
  Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, who was representing the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) as well, has, in discussions with the water authority, secured promises from it that he was generous enough to accept.
  On that basis, the Government recomend that the Bill be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual way into Committee, where its provisions can be considered in detail.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

  Yorkshire Water Authority Bill (By Order)

    House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
    7.29 pm
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move,
    That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

    House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

      PART I OF SCHEDULE 1
      1. After the entry beginning 'Chief or other Social Security Commissioner for Northern Ireland' there shall be inserted:—
      'Commissioner for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970.'.

      PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

        Additional entries
        2. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—
        'A Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal constituted under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984.
        The National Development Team for Mentally Handicapped People.'.

        Entries omitted
        3. The following entries shall be omitted:—

        'The Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations.

        The Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland.

        The Health and Safety Commission.

        The Home-Grown Cereals Authority.

        The Land Authority for Wales.

        The Manpower Services Commission.

        The National Dock Labour Board.

        The Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

        The Red Deer Commission.'

      PART III OF SCHEDULE 1

        Additional entries
        4. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

        'Chairman of the Business & Technician Education Council.

        Chairman of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas.

        Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Managing Director of the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations.

        Chairman of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland.

        Chairman of the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland.

        Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission.

        Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority.

        Chairman of the Land Authority for Wales.

        Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

        Chairman of the Board of the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education.

        Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the National Dock Labour Board.

        Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

        Chairman of the Northern Ireland Training Authority.

        Chairman of the Red Deer Commission.

        A full-time chairman of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.
        Commons Commissioner.
        Director of British Telecommunications p.l.c. appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
        Director of any company in receipt of financial assistance under section 5 of the Films Act 1985, being a director appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
        Member of a panel appointed under section 97(2D)(a) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 of persons eligible to act as chairmen of Social Security Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.
        Member of the Trinity House Lighthouse Board nominated by the Secretary of State.
        President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.'

        Entries omitted
        5. The following entries shall be omitted:—

        'Chairman of an Appeal Tribunal constituted in accordance with Schedule 4 to the Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, or Senior Chairman in relation to such a tribunal.

        Chairman of a Local Tribunal constituted under section 97(2) of, and Schedule 10 to, the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975.

        Constable, Lieutenant or Major of the Tower of London.

        Director of ICL Public Limited Company nominated by a Minister of the Crown or government department.

        Levy Exemption Referee for the purposes of the Industrial Training Act 1982.'

        Other amendments
        6.—(1) In the entry 'Chairman of a committee constituted under section 90 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960' for 'section 90 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960' there shall be substituted 'section 91 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984'.
        (2) In the entry 'Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the National Seed Development Organisation Limited' the words 'or vice-chairman' shall be omitted.
        (3) In the entry 'Director of Harland and Wolff Limited' for 'Limited' there shall be substituted 'p.l.c.'.
        (4) In the entry 'Director of Short Brothers Limited' for 'Limited' there shall be substituted 'p.l.c.'.
        (5) In the entry 'Member of the panel of persons appointed under Schedule 5 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to act as chairmen and other members of rent assessment committees' for 'Schedule 5 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971' there shall be substituted 'Schedule 4 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984'.
        (6) In the entry 'President, or member of a panel of chairmen, of industrial tribunals established under section 13 of the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964' for 'section 13 of the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964' there shall be substituted 'Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984'.
        The schedule lists offices the holders of which are disqualified from membership of the House. It is desirable and important that those detailed provisions are updated regularly. Of the 44 amendments covered, 24 are new entries, 14 are deletions and six are amendments to existing entries. Approximately 95 office holders will be brought into the scope of schedule 1 and 104 will be released. There is, therefore, a net reduction of nine. I have arranged an explanatory note giving details of all the changes, which was put in the Vote Office some weeks ago. As far as I am aware, no comment or amendment has been made. As we are following a well-established procedure, I commend the motion to the House.
        7.29 pm
        Mr. Jeff Rooker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is due to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I know that he wants to ask a question. I was just doing duty on the Yorkshire Water Authority Bill. My right hon. Friend will be heading towards the Chamber quite quickly as the Annunciator will have shown that the Minister was speaking.
        My right hon. Friend wanted to ask about recorders. I freely admit that I have not read the explanatory memorandum. My right hon. Friend wanted to raise with the Minister the rather peculiar circumstances of recorders and members of the judiciary in respect of their being hon. Members. Has the Minister had any thoughts about that? I do not know whether the matter has been put to him in writing. I do not recall it being raised before. Indeed, I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Members are recorders but, in my decade in the House, I have heard about some of my hon. Friends carrying out the duties of recorders. Time does not constrain us, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to pursue the matter in some detail, and the Minister might like to respond.
        Mr. Hayhoe: I am happy to reply to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked about recorders, but, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has now arrived, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to reply to any points that he or any other hon. Members raise.
        7.31 pm
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: I apologise to m) right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) for missing his speech. It was so brief that I rushed in only to find that he had sat down.
        This is an important debate in that, if accepted, the motion will disqualify some people from sitting in the House and thus to a significant extent diminish individual liberty and political rights. In view of that, it is a pity that the debate is relatively ill attended.
        I do not wish to be critical of my right hon. Friend, but I have considerable reservations about the methods that we are adopting. I do not feel able to formulate a clear view about the rightness or wrongness of the changes in the schedule here envisaged. For many years past the House has entrusted to the Minister and his officials the power of making orders under section 5 of the 1975 Act, and we have abdicated responsibility. That is highly undesirable.
        I congratulate my right hen. Friend because he, in common with other Ministers, has made it a practice to put an explanatory memorandum in the Vote Office. They have proved to be of considerable assistance to those of us who want to know why people are omitted from, or included in, the schedule. The Government are to be congratulated on that improvement in procedure. The fact that we have an explanatory memorandum, however, reveals as many defects as it tries to cure.
        I should like to draw attention to several of those defects. We can now see all of the criteria with which the House is concerned. Apparently, Ministers and officials take account of four criteria when determining whether an office holder should appear in a schedule. Why does £4,000 appear among the criteria? I do not believe that Parliament has ever been asked to express a view about whether the £4,000 is right or wrong. No doubt the figure will be uprated. When? Who will be asked? To what extent will Parliament be consulted? I fancy that the answer is not at all—we shall be told when it happens and not before.
        That is true of all of the criteria. I do not believe that any has received statutory approval or been discussed in detail in this place. That is bizarre when those criteria can be used to disqualify people from membership of this House.
        Have the criteria ever been the subject of parliamentary discussion? If not, why not? Will we be consulted when the £4,000 is uprated? If not, why not? Criteria (b), (c) and (d) involve quality judgments of some nicety. They are quite capable of abuse. It is clear that many office holders are disqualified when it is not possible to test whether they should be disqualified. It is not possible to determine whether the judgment is fair or unfair.
        We also discover that some office holders who have previously been disqualified should not have been disqualified. At least, that must be the implication. We should take the example of members of the Red Deer Commission who are unpaid. They have previously been disqualified, but we now learn that they should not have

        803
        been. Why were they disqualified in the first place? If they should not have been, how have they suddenly been relieved of the exemption? We are making changes in people's constitutional rights and have not a clue what is going on.
        Another category of office holder is now to be disqualified. There is a rather engaging phrase in the explanatory memorandum concerning them:
        "the need to disqualify has only just been recognised."
        Hard luck on them, but what is the need? Examples are the Commons Commissioner, the director and assistant director of the National Development Team for Mentally Handicapped People, and the chairman of the Business and Technician Education Council. Why has the need to disquality them only just been recognised? What need? Have they been consulted? Did they know that they would be disqualified? What effect does disqualification have on their contracts of employment? It is a very rum situation. Although we can be flippant about it, people's political rights are affected. Their liberties are diminished, as is the electorate's right to choose whom it wishes.
        There is another group of people for whom it is extremely difficult to see why disqualification should be justified. I could go on like this for a long time. It becomes tedious in the end.
        By the motion, which, if passed by the House, will be incorporated into a statutory instrument, we are legislating to diminish people's political and personal rights. I doubt whether anybody in the Chamber, with the possible exception of the Minister, knows enough about each office that is the subject of disqualification to form a clear view as to whether that office or office holder should be disqualified. I do not, I suspect that Opposition Members do not, and looking at the sparsely attended Conservative Back Benches, I venture to suggest that my hon. Friends do not, either. The fact that the House is so sparsely attended suggests that people are not greatly interested in any event.
        The present procedure is inadequate. We as the legislature should not entrust to Ministers and officials the right to enfranchise or disqualify. We need to have a Select Committee, and the draft resolution should be laid before it. It could then comment on the proposals and advise the House so that when the motion comes to be considered by the House on such an occasion, we should have the benefit of a Select Committee's advice, rather like the Select Committee on European Legislation.
        Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Like him, I find the list of disqualifications and cases where disqualification is no longer thought to be necessary rather foggy. More information is required so that right hon. and hon. Members can make a judgment. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister might consider that, given that under the Government's economic policies we are going through a period of record bankruptcies, that in itself—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion deals with office holders. We are not to discuss other disqualifications. We must stick to the schedule that we are now discussing.
        Mr. Wareing: I am sorry. I was hoping only that that might be discussed in future by the House. I cannot raise that issue, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it into account and that in future we shall have the opportunity to debate that aspect of disqualification from membership of the House of Commons.
        Mr. Hogg: That will arise only if we have an opportunity, by way of primary legislation, to discuss the 1975 Act in the context of proposed amendments. Today we are discussing the schedule, which is given statutory force by section 5 of the 1975 Act. That does not extend to bankruptcy.
        The Government must be congratulated to this extent. The explanatory memorandum helps us, but not sufficiently, because in relation to each of the offices that are being disqualified we do not know which of the criteria has resulted in that disqualification, nor is it possible for the House to form a clear view as to whether the nice judgment formed by the Minister and his officials is fair or unfair. For that reason, I am making my proposals.
        7.42 pm
        Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have just one question for the Minister. How many people are covered by
        "A Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal constituted under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984."?
        The reason why I ask that question is obvious. Many of our friends and colleagues take an active part in tribunal work. It can be time-consuming. take a great deal of effort, and involve individuals in considerable expense.
        When the regulations were passed in 1984, I found that the tribunal was not like others. Basically those who work in those tribunals decide whether someone has a special case for additional milk quota, and they do not have such wide responsibilities as those in some other tribunals. For no apparent reason, the amount fixed for fees is about five or six times that of other tribunals. Therefore, instead of a small, compact number, a large number of people must be involved. Therefore, how many people are affected who are involved in dairy produce quota tribunals?
        7.43 pm
        Mr. Alan Williams: I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), as would everyone in the House, that it is important to be sure that we have considered all aspects when we talk of disqualifying people from their political rights. Therefore, I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether those listed as people to be disqualified have been consulted in advance, or whether it has been presented to them as a fait accompli.
        I also echo a question asked by the hon. Gentleman. Why, other than the monetary threshold figure, have some of the needs to disqualify only just been recognised? With regard to the threshold figure itself, does it represent any change in the threshold in real terms compared with the threshold when we last dealt with the legislation? In other words, is it purely a cost of living adjustment, or has there been an additional exclusion?
        My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to recorders. I do not need to elaborate further. I should like to hear the Minister's answer.
        7.45 pm
        Mr. Hayhoe: I should like to refer to the points that were raised in the debate.
        The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked about recorders. I refer him to the debate that we had in April 1983, when the matter was considered in some detail. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) participated—
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: I was in the Whips' Office.
        Mr. Hayhoe: No doubt my hon. Friend hoped to participate. However, I know that several of my right hon. and hon. Friends did.
        It has been recognised for a long time that full-time members of the judiciary are debarred from being members of the legislature. That is common ground between us. It has also been recognised for many years that several hon. Members are lay justices, and, providing that they exercise their jurisdiction outside their own constituencies, some hon. Members continue to give valuable service in that regard.
        The position of recorders lies in between those two in that they are paid. I understand that by tradition they do not deal with cases arising from their own constituencies, or sit in their own constituencies. It has been a longstanding practice of the House that recorders and deputy recorders should not be excluded from membership of the House.
        The hon. Member for Perry Barr asked how many right hon. and hon. Members practise as recorders or deputy recorders. I understand that at present the figure is 10. The matter could be looked at again, but when we discussed it last time in 1983 the consensus was that the practice had been followed for many years, and there seemed to be no particular reason why we should depart from it.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham was right to refer to the explanatory memorandum, although he was a little less generous than he sometimes is. It was an innovation that I helped to bring in a few years ago. It is not produced just a day or so before the debate. I always arrange for a parliamentary question to be answered making it clear that it is in the Vote Office, and a few weeks elapse. This time, it went into the Vote Office on 5 July, which gave people time to study it and raise questions about it. One is always happy to seek to answer any of those questions.
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: I did not mean to sound ungenerous. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because I know that, following the 1982 difficulties, he introduced that procedure. It would be of great assistance to hon. Members if, in relation to each of the office holders being disqualified or relieved, he would say which criterion of the four has had the result of bringing about the disqualification.
        Mr. Hayhoe: I was just about to refer to that. As so often happens, my hon. Friend's intervention pre-empted my answer. I was going to say that I had noted his point carefully. I shall look at the matter and see whether that can be done in future years.
        I was asked about the £4,000 de minimis figure, which is quoted in the memorandum. It was £500 in 1957 and was uprated to £4,000 in 1983. The figure was published for the first time in last year's explanatory memorandum.
        In cost of living terms, £500 in 1957 is equivalent to £4,103 today. Therefore, it has roughly been valorised,
        806
        and I undertake that the level will be reconsidered. It has certainly not drawn particular criticism in our debates, and perhaps it was about right in 1957, and is about right now. If a change is desirable next year, it will be reported to the House.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham rightly said that we were discussing the disenfranchising of people tonight, but happily the balance lies with enfranchising people. When we compare the strict balance of those put into disqualification with those taken out, one sees that it is slightly more favourable to enfranchisement, with nine more people no longer being disqualified. The individuals concerned are informed. I would not and could not guarantee that the matter was discussed with everyone affected. However, I take my hon. Friend's point, and will find out whether that would be possible for the limited numbers involved.
        My hon. Friend also suggested the possibility of a Select Committee looking into these matters, and I shall draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to the dairy produce quota tribunals The explanatory memorandum shows that 31 individuals are involved.
        As I said earlier, we are following well-tried procedures. These are important matters, and it is right that they should come before the House and that hon. Members should have the opportunity, which I have sought to provide by publishing the details of the proposals well before our debate, to make their views known. I shall certainly continue that practice in future, without any commitment one way or the other to the important possibility of a Select Committee studying these matters. I commend the motion to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

      PART I OF SCHEDULE 1
      1. After the entry beginning 'C'hief or other Social Security Commissioner for Northern Ireland' there shall be inserted:—
      'Commissioner for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970.'.

      PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

        Additional entries
        2. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—
        'A Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal constituted under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984.
        The National Development Team for Mentally Handicapped People.'.

        Entries omitted
        3. The following entries shall be omitted:—

        'The Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations.

        The Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland.

        The Health and Safety Commission.

        The Home-Grown Cereals Authority.

        The Land Authority for Wales.

        The Manpower Services Commission.

        The National Dock Labour Board.

        The Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

        The Red Deer Commission.'

      PART III OF SCHEDULE 1

        Additional entries
        4. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

        'Chairman of the Business & Technician Education Council.

        Chairman of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas.

        807

        Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Managing Director of the Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations.

        Chairman of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland.

        Chairman of the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland.

        Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission.

        Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority.

        Chairman of the Land Authority for Wales.

        Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

        Chairman of the Board of the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education.

        Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the National Dock Labour Board.

        Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

        Chairman of the Red Deer Commission.

        A full-time chairman of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.
        Commons Commissioner.
        Director of British Telecommunications p.l.c. appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
        Director of any company in receipt of financial assistance under section 5 of the Films Act 1985, being a director appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
        Member of a panel appointed under section 97(2D)(a) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 of persons eligible to act as chairmen of Social Security Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.
        Member of the Trinity House Lighthouse Board nominated by the Secretary of State.
        President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.'

        Entries omitted
        5. The following entries shall be omitted:—
        'Chairman of an Appeal Tribunal constituted in accordance with Schedule 4 to the Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, or Senior Chairman in relation to such a tribunal.
        Chairman of a Local Tribunal constituted under section 97(2) of, and Schedule 10 to, the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975.
        Constable, Lieutenant or Major of the Tower of London.
        808
        Director of ICL Public Limited Company nominated by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
        Levy Exemption Referee for the purposes of the Industrial Training Act 1982.'

        Other amendments
        6.—(1) In the entry 'Chairman of a committee constituted under section 90 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960' for 'section 90 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960' there shall be substituted 'section 91 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984'.
        (2) In the entry 'Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the National Seed Development Organisation Limited' the words 'or Vice-Chairman' shall be omitted.
        (3) In the entry 'Director of Harland and Wolff Limited' for 'Limited' there shall be substituted 'p.l.c.'.
        (4) In the entry 'Director of Short Brothers Limited' for 'Limited' there shall be substituted 'p.l.c.'.
        (5) In the entry 'Member of the panel of persons appointed under Schedule 5 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 to act as chairmen and other members of rent assessment committees' for 'Schedule 5 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971' there shall be substituted 'Schedule 4 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984'.
        (6) In the entry 'President, or member of a panel of chairmen. of industrial tribunals established under section 13 of the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964' for 'section 13 of the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964' there shall be substituted 'Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984'.

      Royal Assent
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

      1. Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1985.

      2. Social Security Act 1985.

      3. Shetlands Islands Council (Omnibus Services) Order Confirmation Act 1985.

      4. Scarborough Council Act 1985.

      5. Durham City Council Act 1985.

      6. British Railways (Trowse Bridge) Act 1985.

    Liability for Defective Products
    7.53 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alex Fletcher): I beg to move,
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9427/79, draft Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of all Member States concerning liability for defective products and of the Explanatory Memorandum by the Department of Trade and Industry dated 1st July 1985; and supports the Government's intention to have the Directive adopted at the earliest opportunity.
    The subject of product liability is not new to the House. The Select Committee on European Legislation considered the subject in 1976 and again in 1979, and it was debated by the House at some length in November 1980.
    The anomalies in our existing laws governing product liability are well known. A purchaser who is injured by a defective product is entitled to compensation from his supplier, usually a retailer, in strict liability, that is without proof of default, under the law of contract. A victim other than the purchaser, however, can recover damages only under the law of tort—or delict in Scotland—if he can show that someone in the chain of supply has been negligent. For many years now, it has been recognised that this state of affairs is unjust.
    As the House will be aware, the Scottish and English Law Commissions examined the question of product liability and published a joint report in 1977. They were critical of the existing law on a number of counts and recommended that the United Kingdom should introduce a system of strict liability. They recognised that it was desirable to impose liability on those in the chain of manufacture and distribution, who were in the best position to exercise control over the quality and safety of a product, and to insure against possible defects.
    The Royal Commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury—the Pearson commission—also reported on this subject in March 1978, and made a similar recommendation. It was against that background that our support for the underlying principles of the proposed directive developed.
    The proposed directive is a harmonisation measure introduced under article 100 of the Treaty of Rome. In putting forward its proposal, the European Commission recognised that the divergence in the laws of member states might distort competition, influence the free movement of goods and lead to different levels of protection for the consumer. The extent to which such distortions have occurred is extremely difficult to measure, but we must recognise, considering the experience some British companies have had in exporting, for example, to the United States, that differences in potential liability and in insurance costs arising from different regimes can, indeed, have an influence on marketing decisions and on the terms of trade.
    When the House debated an earlier draft of the proposed directive in November 1980, there was a general consensus that a harmonised European regime based on strict liability was the right way forward, but a number of problems with the text of the directive were pointed out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) pointed out that, although the Government agreed with the aim of establishing a common system of liability throughout the Community, the draft could not be accepted as it stood.
    810
    One of the most important changes that we considered necessary was the incorporation of a development risks defence. It is sometimes referred to as a "state-of-the-art" defence. We accepted the argument put to us by industry that the extension of liability to a producer, even when it was impossible to have detected the defect in the product at the time it was put on the market, could substantially inhibit innovation, especially in high-risk industries. We have, therefore, sought to incorporate this defence, to make a number of other changes, and to seek clarification on other points raised during the extensive consultations we have undertaken.
    In Brussels, differences of opinion between member states have persisted on one or two points, in particular on the development risks defence and on the imposition of a financial limit on a producer's total liability. Those differences could not be resolved and, therefore, a compromise package was put forward earlier this year. It incorporated the development risks defence based on the principle of strict liability without financial limit.
    Individual member states are, however, allowed to derogate on both those points, subject to certain limitations. On financial limits, for example, no member state could introduce a total limit for a single manufacturer's liability on a single product of less than 70 million ecu—about £40 million. Experience of operating under those derogations would be reviewed after 10 years to consider their effect and to explore the scope for coming closer together on these points.
    We would, obviously, have much preferred a completely harmonised regime throughout the EC, with a development risks defence but no financial limit, but the course of the negotiations made it quite clear that a common regime on those lines would never be agreed, and that the only alternative to accepting the compromise was to continue for another decade. or more, without reaching agreement.
    In those circumstances, we believe that the compromise package, on which the revised text of the directive is based, should be supported. If the directive is adopted in this form, we shall be free to introduce, in our implementing legislation, a system in the United Kingdom of unlimited strict liability with a development risks defence. Many of our partners will do the same, although some will exclude the defence, and some will impose a limit on total liability. Although such differences are regrettable, we consider that the common features in the directive—especially the common establishment of the principle of strict liability—are more important than the two differences.
    The circumstances in which the development risks defence can be successfully invoked are likely to be rare. It sets a tough standard, and the minimum financial limit is set high so that it should have a minimum effect, if any, on the cost of insurance.
    The package should be seen as a whole. It includes all the other elements in the proposed directive, which have received less attention during the past five years than development risks and financial limits. We have managed to secure some substantial improvements to the text on these points, and to secure clarification on the interpretation of some of the articles, in response to the concerns raised in this House and elsewhere since the first draft was published. For example, hon. Members will notice that we have secured a much more satisfactory definition of "a defective product", and of the scope of

    811
    products covered by the directive, and we have secured some important changes and extensions to the defences listed under article 5.
    On property damage, we have limited the application of the directive to damage done to purely personal property, with a minimum claims limit to exclude trivial claims. Although some hon. Members might have preferred property damage to be excluded altogether, I hope they will agree that, with these limitations to the scope and definition, the provision is now acceptable.
    Some anxiety has been expressed about the effect that the directive might have on the cost of insurance against product liability claims and on the consequent extra burden on industry at a time when the Government are making special efforts to lift such burdens.
    Every study of which the Government are aware, including comparative evidence from countries with different regimes, has shown that the provisions in this directive should lead only to a marginal rise in insurance premiums. This is not surprising. Industry is already subject to strict liability in contract and to liability subject to proof of negligence in tort.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: How wide are the Department's consultations? Has my hon. Friend heard of an organisation called the Society of British Aerospace Companies Ltd, and has he consulted it as to whether the effect of insurance costs will be marginal?
    Mr. Fletcher: We have had wide consultations with industry, including the CBI. Even if we did not consult the industry to which my hon. Friend referred directly—I cannot answer his point now, but I shall try to find out—I hope that its representations were included in those made to my Department by the CBI.
    Mr. Taylor: The Minister said that his Department may not have had consultations with the aircraft industry, but that it consulted the CBI. This morning, I received a letter from the CBI saying that the change would result in significant increases in insurance costs for the consumer. My hon. Friend will know that I am worried about this, especially about rubbers. The Minister said that the CBI agrees with him, but I say that it does not. Would he check this with his Department, because my view is confirmed in a letter from the CBI?
    Mr. Fletcher: One of the joys of being a Member of the House, at least for the remainder of the time that I am here, is realising that my hon. Friend will never allow me to forget about rubbers. For those who do not understand the reference, I should explain that we are talking about scented erasers. We have discussed this matter at length with the CBI, whose representatives I met only a few weeks ago.
    My hon. Friend said that the change would result in increased costs to the consumer. The insurance costs will be borne by the consumer. Of course, if the increase is significant, it will be passed on to consumers through the pricing mechanism. However, we have had detailed discussions with industry, and we have made the best attempts that we can with the British insurance industry, taking into account experience elsewhere, to judge what the increase in insurance costs would be. The answer is
    812
    that it will be negligible. I know what the CBI says in the letter to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members, but the letter does not display any expertise on insurance costs.
    I do not accept comparisons with the American experience of product liability as proof that a strict liability regime brings in its wake automatic increases in insurance costs. With punitive damages, contingency fees for lawyers and jury trials for civil liability cases, it is not surprising that companies in high-risk industries have had special difficulties with product liability insurance in the United States. In our view, however, the vagaries of the United States legal system, not the concept of strict liability, caused the so-called "crisis" in product liability insurance in the United States some years ago.
    This directive does not represent a burden on business. The best British companies take their responsibilities for potential defects in their products very seriously; they already insure against possible disasters, and they pay up when it is clearly established that innocent victims have been damaged by their products. This directive will make it clear that all manufacturers and, equally important, all importers must reach these same high standards.
    It is no longer acceptable that retailers, but not manufacturers, should be subject to strict liability, or that the innocent victims of the occasional disaster caused by a defective product must bear the burden on their own. Ultimately, the burden must be shared by all those who benefit from the product, as any increase in insurance or testing costs resulting from strict liability will be passed on to consumers through the pricing mechanism.
    Mr. Taylor: If it is so desperately important to look after consumers' rights and to give them compensation, why has the Minister excluded agriculture? Is that not an area where people suffer damage and death because of problems with products?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the directive excludes primary agriculture, on the basis that farmers cannot be held personally responsible for the vagaries of climate and conditions outwith their control. However, once agricultural produce is processed by manufacturers, it will come within the scope of the directive.
    All products supplied in the EC will be covered by the directive. So British companies will not be placed at any competitive disadvantage. I repeat that it will apply also to all importers, regardless of where the products originate.
    The directive in its present form represents a long-needed advance in consumer protection throughout the EC. I invite the House to agree that we should adopt it without delay.
    8.9 pm
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I tried to jot down the Minister's last words. I believe he said that this was a long-needed advance in consumer protection. I am happy to support that view. The ludicrous state of our law until now has meant, as the Minister explained, that only those who had purchased an item and could prove negligence could claim consequently. An example would be a woman who had bought a defective hot water bottle. She could sue if she was scalded, but not if her child was scalded. In the cases of thalidomide, and, more recently, Opren, people seeking to claim compensation have been unable to do so

    813
    because of the lack of a compensation provision for third parties. As the Minister has said, this is a welcome strengthening of the Act.
    The Minister spent a good deal of time on the state-of-the-art defence. The Minister said that it was at the United Kingdom behest that the state-of-the-art defence was included, and it is that which gives me the greatest cause for concern. There is concern in many areas that this may be widened to include design defects, and the National Consumer Council in its brief expressed concerns which are widely held, and which I certainly support, that this will give the possibility of the reintroduction by the back door of the concept of negligence.
    The Minister did not address himself to why we need this provision. He will no doubt know the details better that I do, but we must be just about the only country in Europe to have sought this state-of-the-art defence. In his speech, the Minister said that the reason for it was that if we did not do it it might cut back on some of the development and research in the British pharmaceutical industry. Look at what happens elsewhere in Europe. Germany has a thriving pharmaceutical industry but it has seen no need for a state-of-the-art defence and its industry prospers and survives. The likelihood is that Germany, France and Denmark will derogate from this position and will not call into effect the state-of-the-art defence.
    Mr. Fletcher: It will be helpful if I mention the countries which are for and against the state-of-the-art defence. The countries in favour are the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany—except in pharmaceuticals. The countries against are France, Greece, Belgium and Luxembourg.
    Mr. Ashdown: There is a significant schism and the interesting point is that Germany does not seek this for pharmaceuticals, yet it has a thriving pharmaceutical industry. Why does the Minister believe that it is so important for us? Does he not concede that there is a possibility, however strict his definitions, that there will be a back door return to the concept of negligence? Other countries do not have it. Is it not also true that those countries which have the state-of-the-art defence, like Britain, may be used as test beds for research and development?
    The Minister mentioned the Pearson commission and I should like to draw his attention to what it said about the matter. It described the position very clearly when it said:
    "to exclude development risks from a regime of strict liability would be to leave a gap in the compensation cover, through which, for example, the victims of another thalidomide disaster might easily slip."
    Is that not precisely the gap we want to close? The Pearson commission made that point strongly. The Minister gave a brief explanation, which was much too weak and inadequate, about why he wishes to see the state-of-the-art defence maintained. We can give this piece of legislation two cheers, but not three. The inclusion of the state-of-the-art defence means that the legislation has within it a gaping black hole through which it seems quite possible that many cases of injustice and inadequate compensation will slip.
    Particularly in the case of another disaster like thalidomide, as the Pearson commission said is it not the case that that defence leaves that massive hole? When the Minister comes to sum up, I hope he will take time to explain to the House why precisely he wishes to see the
    814
    state-of-the-art defence continued when other countries think it is not necessary and when the Pearson commission in particular has recommended the opposite approach.
    8.16 pm
    Mr. William Cash: As a recently appointed member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I am concerned that this directive has been around for many years. The information I have received is that the Select Committee called for a debate. I was not a member of the Committee at the time that happened. In 1980, this subject first obtained in scientific journals the sort of coverage it deserved. Since then, there has been a tendency for the subject to be rushed and I suspect that perhaps what the Minister said about the need for achieving a breakthrough has led to a compromise that will leave many people in industry rather perturbed.
    I understand the need for getting on with legislation in the European Community. Apparently, it gets bogged down sometimes, but at times there are important matters of this kind which have been around for a long time, and one is left wondering why the matter has been brought forward and effectively, it can fairly be said, pushed through at short notice after inadequate discussion towards the end of a consultation period. I am informed that, when the previous Minister was considering this matter. assurances were given that the United Kingdom would seek as major objectives, first, the achievement of a common regime and, secondly, as has been mentioned on several occasions, the incorporation of the state-of-the-art defence.
    It has also been made clear to me that the present compromise neither adequately safeguards either of those two objectives nor excludes liability for damage to property. As I understand it, the directive will not lead to the harmonisation of European laws. The Minister fairly pointed out that several countries do not subscribe to the directive in its complete form. Therefore, it will add an extra burden to industry and create an uncertainty of approach which is likely to harm further investment decisions.
    The main concerns raised with me are, first, that if strict liability without proof of fault is introduced it must be a specific requirement and claimants collectively should prove that the product was defective, that the injury was caused by the defect, and that the defendant was the producer. Secondly, it must also be open to the manufacturer to prove that he did not put the product into circulation, and that if he did the product was not defective when it was put into circulation, or that the product was not put into circulation in the course of business.
    It is further put to me that the defence of contributory negligence should be maintained, particularly where it could be clearly adduced that the manufacturer issued with the product clear instructions or a warning drawing the consumer's attention to the need to exercise care in the use of the product. I suspect that those arguments are familiar to the Minister, but what may have gone on behind the scenes and what representations may have been made to the European Legislation Select Committee have not previously been heard in the House.
    As I have said before, I am in favour of moving the log jam of legislation which has been snarled up in Europe for a number of years. But there are priorities which must be applied, and it has been put to me most strongly that there has been inadequate consultation in the run-up to the

    815
    adoption of this directive. Adopting it is effectively what we are doing today. As a new member of the Select Committee, I hope we do not find that the removal of a log jam means that things suddenly get rushed through the House.
    This matter has not been the subject of public debate in Britain for five years or more and consultation at the last minute is inadequate. Moreover, the proposed directive does not comply with the Government's previously stated position. The people who are greatly concerned about this would have liked to see the achievement, both in the common regime and in the specific requirement, of the incorporation of the state-of-the-art defence.
    I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view. I understand that there are difficulties in getting through directives of this type given the problems in Europe at the moment. However, it has to be done in such a way as to ensure that those who have been consulted in the past are adequately consulted as the matter proceeds to a final conclusion. That is precisely what we are doing in this debate.
    8.20 pm
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: It would be wrong to approve the motion without conveying that there is real concern in industry about the proposals in the directive. The Minister mentioned the CBI. It should be put on record that the CBI has made it clear that it believes that the regulations will be contrary to the main policy objectives outlined by the Government and will expose industry to the possibility of precisely that degree of liability that the Government declared was unacceptable.
    The CBI also points out that the directive will not lead to harmonisation, though that has been mentioned, that the proposals will mean extra burdens on industry just when the Government are seeking ways to lessen them, and that it will introduce further uncertainties at a time when industry is working hard to remain competitive in the face of increasing insurance and other costs.
    There is no doubt about the insurance position. Although the Minister has had consultations with someone, the CBI has no doubt. It says that the directive will involve very substantial additional insurance costs and that it will be very serious for industry
    It is not just the CBI that is saying that. Other organisations such as the Federation of British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers' Associations makes it clear that in its view the directive will do enormous damage to its members, to jobs, to profits and to trade. The Minister should make it clear that, although he may think that it will not do a great deal of damage, our major industries, especially those on the heavy side, think that these are very damaging proposals.
    It is not just trade associations which take this view. This morning I spoke to people running a number of firms in Southend. If the Minister has any doubt about what industry thinks of the proposals, he should speak to the giant MK Electrical Company, which is greatly concerned that the proposals will have a very serious effect on jobs, on investment, on profits and on its future.
    I want to ask the Minister a few basic questions. Why is he so confident that the effects on insurance costs will be marginal? In this connection, I sought the views of the Society of British Aerospace Companies. After consulting
    816
    top aviation underwriters, the society accepts that for those involved in the production of boots or blankets, for example, there will probably not be an enormous difference in insurance costs, but for anyone involved in a technical or developed product in a special or high-risk industry such as aerospace there will be a devastating effect on insurance premiums. The society—not one or two renegades in it but a society which represents British aerospace—has made it clear that not only does it think that these proposals will add enormously to the insurance costs of its members but that in some cases there will be great difficulty in getting insurance cover at all.
    It must also be made clear that we are not achieving a great deal, if anything, by these proposals. We shall not get the famous harmonisation which the Common Market is obsessively keen to secure. These are not harmonisation proposals. Countries will still be different.
    The Minister also said that we had the protection of the state-of-the-art defence, that the Government thought that this would be a good idea and that we should see it within three years. But let us add three years to 1985. In 1988, although I hope that it will not happen, we could have a different Government. We might have a Labour Government. By and large, the Labour and Conservative parties, in different ways, are concerned for the welfare of industry. I do not suggest that Labour does not care because in a different way the Labour party cares a great deal about jobs and investment, just as Conservatives do. But we also have these strange creatures, the Liberals, who pop into debates such as this for five minutes, speak from a Consumers Association brief and then disappear. It should be recorded that when we are debating a very important motion which will affect the future of British industry, jobs and investment, there is no one present to represent the Liberal party and no one from the Social Democratic party. Instead, a representative popped in to say that the Consumers Association was a grand idea, and then shot out to have a cup of tea. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that the Liberals believed that the Government should drop the state-of-the-art defence.
    Although I know that the chairman of the Conservative 1922 Committee and all members of the party will fight hard to make sure that we have a Conservative Government next time round, it is just possible that, because of events outwith our control, there will be a change of Government. If the Liberals and the Social Democrats held the balance of power, they could say that one of their conditions for doing a deal with one of the major parties would be to drop the state-of-the-art defence. That would have a devastating effect on industry and on jobs in any company involved in technology or heavy industry. To that extent, it is desperately important for the Minister to realise that here we have uncertainty, which is the one thing that we do not want at present, as the CBI says.
    Within the three years of implementation, we could have a change of Government. We could just have the alliance, which wants to drop the state-of-the-art defence, having effective control by holding the balance of power. What, then, would be the position of industry? The Government are bringing in uncertainty for industry at the one time that it does not want it.
    There is a second uncertainty. In 10 years, this directive is to be reviewed by the EEC Commission. At that time it will review how the derogations are working out. We know that all kinds of exciting developments are expected

    817
    from a conference on a treaty of European union and more majority voting. As I understand it, the Government's position is that we do not want a treaty but that we want to see more majority voting. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who spends all his time studying European matters, will confirm that the British Government accept that any review will be done by a majority vote. So far the majority of the European nations—and certainly they will by then—think that the state-of-the-art defence is one that they are not too keen about in Britain's case. We could in 10 years' time find the state-of-the-art defence being thrown out simply because of a majority vote. Even if the 630 Members of this House say that we do not like it, it will not matter two hoots.
    Mr. Cash: I should point out that I have on a number of occasions expressed my disquiet at some aspects of the Dooge report and also at too rapid a movement to majority voting. I have gone even further and said that I have grave reservations about it.
    Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to hear that. My hon. Friend is one of the sincere hon. Members present. He is saying that he does not like the Dooge report and that he does not like majority voting. But I am saying that he will be able to do nothing about it, apart from complain, in a few months. He knows that we have a vote about the extra cash, which means the end of reform of the EEC. We are now going on to discuss extra majority voting. More and more Conservatives are saying that they are not happy with the way that the Common Market is working. They do not like the jobs that it is losing for Britain. They do not like the extra taxes. They are worried about the effects on industry. It goes on and on.
    With this directive the Commission will have the power to propose to the Council of Ministers that by a majority vote the state-of-the-art defence will be got rid of. If that happens, it will be a bad day for British industry.
    If there was any doubt that this directive would be damaging to industry, that the Department was right and that it was not so bad after all, I think that we saw that it was likely to be gravely damaging when the Common Market decided to leave out agriculture. Whenever agriculture is exempted we know that it must be something nasty. For example, rates are a terrible burden but agriculture is exempted from paying rates. If anything is particularly bad or nasty, one usually finds that agriculture is exempt. Although we are told that this measure is needed to protect European consumers, agriculture is exempt. Can the Parliamentary Under-Secretary say what is meant by the exclusion of primary agricultural products? I think it means that foodstuffs are not exempt if it can be proved that they have undergone industrial processing which causes a defect. If, therefore, people are poisoned or deformed as a consequence of a primary agricultural activity it will not be possible to make a claim against those who produced the food. Only if somebody puts paper around the food which is found to be defective can a claim be made.
    Mr. Cash: I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) to the explanatory memorandum that is attached to the amendment to the proposal which sets out the reasons why it appears to be justified to exclude primary agricultural products. It says:
    818
    "This is by way of contrast to agricultural products industrially produced because strict liability for defects in such products which have been caused by factors extraneous to the activities of agricultural producers could be too onerous"
    without adding why.
    "Such an exemption is even admissible from the point of view of consumer protection for it says that the formulation of the amendment under the present directive when read with article 11 does not exclude liability for fault which generally speaking will not be impossible to attribute."
    If my hon. Friend can make sense of that, I shall welcome his comments.
    Mr. Taylor: What they are saying is quite clear: that it could be too onerous. In other words, if this is applied to agriculture, it could be too onerous a burden for agriculture to carry. But what about British Aerospace? It is not provided with the same protection and subsidy as is provided for agriculture. And what about heavy industry and engineering? It worries me intensely that a Government who are concerned about looking after the interests of British industry and British jobs sadly do not seem to care about them so much whenever agriculture is at stake. It is said that agriculture cannot be allowed to suffer damage. If the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State thinks that agriculture is so important, what protection will be provided for people who are deformed or damaged because of the various chemicals that are used in agricultural production? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, the only reason for the exclusion of agriculture is that the liability would be too onerous for agriculture. If it is too onerous for agriculture, what about other industries? Are we not concerned about investment and jobs in British Aerospace, engineering and the whole gamut of British industry?
    The proposals will achieve nothing of value. We are not even getting the harmonisation which the Euro-nuts want that would help trade. The proposals will simply add to the burdens placed upon industry and, far more important, will add to the uncertainties faced by industry. Once again we are introducing something that is completely unjust. We are piling further burdens upon industry without putting any extra burdens upon agriculture. It is tragic that something that is so devastatingly bad for British industry and that contains all these wide implications of uncertainty is being debated in a House which, admittedly on a special night, is not quite so full as it should be. If hon. Members knew what was involved and were to think about their effects, these regulations would be thrown out very quickly, whether or not, as is still the case, members of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party were in attendance.
    8.34 pm
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: It is always difficult, in legislation of this kind, whether it originates in the European Community or in this country, to obtain the right balance between obtaining protection for the consumer, which is one of the primary objectives, and avoiding placing upon industry any burden which would make it more difficult for it to provide jobs and compete in the world. We must ensure that industry is not faced with additional costs, when it is the avowed intention of Her Majesty's Government to seek ways in which to reduce complications and costs for British industry.
    Mr. Cash: "Lifting the Burden" has just been published and contains a section relating to European regulations. Does my hon. Friend think that this subject ought to be referred back for further consideration?
    Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right. At this point, however, I am simply accepting that we need to obtain a balance between these considerations and protection of the consumer. One of the problems which during the last few years has made the discussion of consumer protection more difficult has been the number of extremely tragic and highly publicised disasters which have been caused by pharmaceutical products. The result has been a particularly strong demand for consumer protection, which has led to the House being in danger of imposing upon industries far wider than that particular sector a burden which is both unnecessary and unhelpful.
    In general, industry likes certainty. It likes to know what its position will be in a variety of markets. If these proposals were to lead to harmonisation, I should support them. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), do not support harmonisation for its own ends. Nevertheless, harmonisation of matters of this kind would result in many advantages. It is not simply a question of competing with firms which operate in countries with different legal fegimes. We are also trying to sell in those markets, so we are subject to the national laws of those countries. Harmonisation would therefore be desirable, but unfortunately we are not debating a measure that will result in harmonisation. It will create a new set of uncertainties to replace the existing uncertainties. One wonders whether there is a case for saying that if we cannot have harmonisation it would be better to leave well alone.
    I remember that I said a good deal of what I am saying now in our 1980 debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the fact that tonight he is able to bring back the fruits of his predecessor's promise: a firm adherence to the principle of a state-of-the-art defence. I wish that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) had remained in the Chamber after making his speech because, if nothing else, he and I have one thing in common. Both he and I have within our constituencies parts of the Westland organisation.
    I listened with blank amazement to the hon. Gentleman opposing a state-of-the-art defence, when the subsidiary of Westlands in my constituency is one of the strongest and most vociferous companies impressing the need for a state-of-the-art defence if we are to maintain our position on the frontiers of research and development, particularly in developments in the aircraft and aerospace industries, and also in the development of composite materials, since it is difficult to know in advance how these materials will operate in long-term use. It is essential that a firm knows that state of the art can be put forward as a genuine defence if a defect arises which could not have been foreseen at the time of manufacture because we did not have the scientific ability to recognise it.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the fact that that problem has been taken on board, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, I am alarmed that there is a possibility that not only may we find that after 10 years some countries have opted out of accepting that defence within their national boundaries, but that the EEC could decide that the defence should not be accepted in the harmonised legislation which we hope to see at that
    820
    time. That would be worrying not just in 10 years' time, but in the intervening period, because it is not possible for industries to know in advance what will happen. We are not getting the certainty that we seek.
    My hon. Friend the Minister said that the brief that hon. Members had received from the CBI did not show any great expertise in insurance matters. Surely no one would wish to suggest that the CBI does not have that expertise. If the confederation says that there may be cost burdens and additional factors of competitiveness, that should be considered as the view of a respected and responsible body. I wonder whether my hon. Friend meant what he said. Perhaps he would like to rephrase his comments.
    I had hoped for a much better agreement from the EEC on harmonisation, based on the general attitude taken by our Government. Aparently that has proved impossible, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on what has been achieved. I hope that our representatives will continue to watch over the interests of British industry in the next 10 years and ensure that we do not have harmonised difficulty to replace existing uncertainties.
    8.43 pm
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friends that the proposal has been rushed through. Industry is unhappy about it, particularly because of the short notice at which the debate was arranged.
    Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said about the Society of British Aerospace Companies, I stress that it represents the whole range of aerospace companies, including Short Brothers and Rolls-Royce, as well as British Aerospace and all the major and minor subcontractors. Those companies have not been consulted about the detailed provisions of the directive. They say:
    "While the various drafts in recent times have been handed around in most other Community countries they have only been shown to SBAC in strict confidence".
    I understand that open government is operated in Brussels. A hallmark of our Administration has been their concern with open government, but that does not appear to have operated in this case, and that is regrettable. It seems that the proposal will go through, but I hope that the Minister will note that this is not a happy way to proceed.
    I welcome the fact that the Minister has ensured that importers will be subject to the same conditions as British industry, but I should like some clarification from him about what will happen when an imported product—a domestic toaster, for example—becomes defective, causes injury and someone sues for compensation.
    Unlike the manufacturer, the importer may have only a small operation with £100 capital and his business may merely be importing goods, selling them and making a return on the way. What recourse will the consumer have? What recourse will he have if there is a defect in an imported product that is handled by an importer of insufficient standing? What requirement will there be for small importing companies to insure themselves so that funds are available to meet claims?
    I declare an interest as the parliamentary adviser to the Electric Cable Makers Federation. Manufacturers of cable are extremely worried about the implications of the proposal. They produce the cable that goes into appliances such as domestic toasters. If a toaster causes injury, will a cable manufacturer who has merely provided the cable

    821
    be joined in an action and be subject to unlimited liability, even though his product meets British standards? All British cable meets British standards. However, an imported appliance, to which cable is attached, may not meet British standards and a United Kingdom cable manufacturer could be joined in an action.
    I apply that analogy to the aerospace industry. An aeroplane is an amalgam of thousands, sometimes millions, of components. What will happen if a claim is made against a manufacturer who has incorporated a component that has become defective, notwithstanding the fact that it meets all British standards? Will the manufacturer of the plane be liable? Will he be liable if the component comes from overseas? Planes are seldom made from components from only one country. Equally, could a manufacturer of one component be liable for the failure of others? For example, could the manufacturer of the undercarraige be joined in an action because an aeroplane crashed owing to a fault in the navigation system?
    Those are serious questions and I have touched on them only briefly. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them, because there is anxiety on the Conservative Benches that the proposal is being rushed through and that it will have serious consequences for British industry, not only in terms of jobs, but in terms of insurance costs. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure us.
    8.50 pm
    Mr. Roger King: It is difficult to be a small business man these days. The laws and regulations which are constantly brought before the House make it even more difficult. Large corporations have the funds and resources to take on the challenge of producing high quality products. The smaller manufacturer, employing 20 or 30 people, has severe difficulty in producing the right type of quality products. Under this legislation his task will become more difficult.
    I speak from experience because in the late 1970s my small company, employing 25 to 30 people, earned a living producing replacement road wheels and car seating for motor cars. The company exported to Japan, the United States and to most European countries.
    The problem particularly in America in the late 1970s when product liability was the in thing was that enormous claims were brought against companies such as General Motors and Ford in respect of cars produced 20 years before, after their occupants had been killed in bad crashes. That trend filtered through to the suppliers of accessories such as my firm. Our insurers were hesitant to underwrite us and our products because they argued that, even though we might have tested our products efficiently, given the levels of testing available on this side of the Atlantic, we did not oversee the fitment of the product to the vehicle. The insurers asked, if our product was all right and the car into which it was put was all right, who would be liable for the fitment if all we did was supply the component and the owner fitted it himself. If our product failed, would we be able to fall back on its being incorrectly fitted? It was a grey area which we never resolved because it seemed that everyone successfully fitted our product.
    I hope that the legislation will impose some control over the vast quantity of imported products that enter Britain, particularly spare parts. I have in mind alternators,
    822
    generators, brake systems, brake pipes and so on which are made in the far east and which are packaged in boxes identical to those used by reputable companies in Europe. Even the names are the same. They are sold here under household names. The products are made to reasonable standards and are good copies, but they are liable to failure. I hope that the legislation will bar scurrilous producers in the far east who seek to gain opportunities here and in Europe by peddling components.
    The American experience of unlimited product liability was unhappy initially, and I am worried about the state-of-the-art provision. In two or three years perhaps the users of cars produced today may complain if a vehicle is rammed in the side and a fatality occurs. There is no current statutory requirement to side-impact test a car. Front tests into a concrete block are required and most manufacturers ensure a rear shunt test. The side impact test is voluntary.
    The American experience shows that it is possible to challenge manufacturers in respect of that which they did not find necessary. The situation is dangerous enough for the small manufacturer, but it is fraught with difficulties for the larger company. Legions of lawyers seek to exploit opportunities to bring large manufacturers to account for tests which they were not aware had to be undertaken. Fortunately, the British and European motor industries have to be competitive to stay in business. Their products have to be extremely well made and engineered; if they are not, they will get a bad name and lose in the market place.
    If we are to have rules in Europe, they should help our industry and discourage importers from selling inferior products here. Harmonisation is a small step in the right direction.
    8.55 pm
    Mr. Alan Williams: I approach the order in the role of gamekeeper-poacher as one who was Minister responsible for consumer affairs when discussions began in Brussels in the mid-1970s and who subsequently became the Minister responsible for manufacturing industry.
    It is strange that 10 years after the consultation began complaints are being made about lack of consultation. Lest the Minister thinks that he has found an Opposition ally, I must add that, paradoxical though it might seem, his hon. Friends have a legitimate point.
    The CBI says that the recent changes have been so sudden that it has not had an opportunity to comment on them adequately. I received a brief early last week from a European consumer group explaining why it thought it wrong that the Government should change its position and allow exemption for the Food Manufacturers Federation's clients. About 48 hours later I received a draft document which said that those clients were now omitted from the legislation.
    I received a telephone call today from the Associated British Chambers of Commerce saying that not only had it not been consulted but that it was able to find information only by borrowing a copy of the directive from the CBI. It was in a desperate position, being unable to brief anyone because it had not had time to deal with the changes.

    823
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, brought to my attention a comment in a report by that Committee which stated:
    "The Committee have not had time to consult those who submitted written evidence in respect of the original draft Directive. This would in any event have been difficult as no official text of the revised version of the text is available."
    Our watchdog Committee set up to ensure the proper scrutiny of European legislation did not even have a copy of the legislation about which it was supposed to advise the House.
    The peculiarity of the Government's position was demonstrated by the fact that I encountered the document at about 5.30 in the evening with a note saying that the Government Whips wanted clearance to put the matter in the hands of a Committee upstairs. I protested because the issue is far too important to be dealt with tucked away cosily in a Committee from which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) would probably be excluded. However, it is not for me to cause mischief between the hon. Gentleman and his Minister. I am sure that he is perfectly capable of creating his own mischief. It so happens that in this case, as with the case of the scented erasers, the hon. Gentleman has a valid complaint about the failure of the Department to carry out consultation on its final proposals. That is the important point. It is all well and good having consultations on the early stage proposals, but the final proposals are those that are likely to operate. Therefore, it is especially important that everyone who has a point of view, especially hon. Members, should be fully up to date on what the Government have in mind.
    The point against the Government in their lack of consultation during recent weeks and the attempt to bounce this provision through the House is justifiable—
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House, through its Standing Orders, has made specific provision that if an EEC document is sent upstairs to Committee any Member of the House, even if not a member of the Committee, can participate in that discussion although he may not vote? I mention that because it is a procedure that gives some safeguard—but not, as my right hon. Friend said, as great as having a debate on the Floor of the House.
    Is my right hon. Friend further aware that there has been an increase in frequency in the work of the Scrutiny Committee where there has been an early proposal that is changed quite drastically at a fairly late stage in the deliberations in Brussels, providing the sort of situation facing the House tonight? I have one caveat—frequently that is done by other institutions in Brussels because other nations do not have the sort of scrutiny of their national Parliaments that we have instituted in this House.
    Mr. Williams: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that additional information. I fully appreciate his point about hon. Members being free to attend Committees. I strongly suspect that, in the context of the earlier order to which I referred, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) found that in his notification of business for the coming week the relevant item had been erased with one of his perfumed erasers.
    We must recognise that there is a difference of interest, inevitably, and also a community of interest between
    824
    consumer and producer. A consumer wants a product that is safe and as cheap as he can get it, and also wants to be sure that he can be adequately compensated—he does not care who compensates him—if the product should, unfortunately, be defective.
    The producer wants maximum productivity. He wants to be able to innovate his product and to have predictability in the marketplace. The Community wants the best of all worlds. It wants the maximum wealth production that can be obtained from the manufacturing sector.
    For the consumer, the position has become increasingly difficult. That is not a recent development—it has been the inevitable development of the economic system and the system of production. Products have become more complex—scientifically and technologically and in content and composition. It is therefore virtually impossible for the consumer to assess a product when he buys it.
    As a result of the use of sampling techniques in product quality control, there is a risk of errors slipping through the productive system and the consumer becoming the tester of the product—something with which the purchasers of new cars have become thoroughly acquainted. As companies become more international, it becomes increasingly difficult for the consumer to mount an effective case, especially if he has to prove negligence, as he currently must do under our system. Not only is he up against a massive multinational, but one that has, possibly, most of the expertise in the field, the ability to pay for top lawyers and the resources to mount such an expensive law case that it frightens away potential claims. Therefore, the consumer is at a massive disadvantage, something with which the legislation is intended to deal.
    It is a little nonsensical that, if a woman purchases an electric kettle and suffers a severe electric shock, she has a strict claim against the seller of the product. Yet if a member of her family, who did not actually purchase the kettle, experienced a similar shock and injury, he would not have the same rights.
    Therefore, the law that gives a consumer any defence against the provision of defective products is paradoxical, anomalous and unfair. Thalidomide was the spur that triggered the investigations that led to the current proposal.
    As the Consumers' Association has pointed out, because of the escape clause that the Government are providing, even after this legislation is enacted, in the event of another thalidomide tragedy, there will still not be an easier case for the consumer than there was when the concern arose more than 10 years ago. It will be of no help to the victims of Opren who—with 65 dead and more than 3,500 having suffered side effects—are still trying to obtain compensation and recognition from the producer of that defective drug.
    There is, clearly, a difference between the Government Front Bench, the Back Benches and the CBI on this issue. The CBI has said that insurance will be a major factor which will add massively to costs. That seems to differ from the view of the insurance industry. Insurers have suggested that they could cope perfectly well with a system of strict liability, even if it meant doubling producers' insurance costs.
    "It is estimated by the insurance companies that this would only increase the actual cost of insurance from 0·01 per cent. of turnover to 0·02 per cent."

    825
    That was stated in evidence by the Commercial Union Assurance Company in March 1979 to an international conference on pharmaceutical product liability. Further, the Royal Commission on Civil Liability concluded:
    "we have no reason to believe that the total effect of introducing strict liability would be more than a small proportion of product costs as a whole. We think this is a justifiable price for consumers and producers to pay for the benefits which the victims stand to gain by it."
    We may be told to consider what happens in America, where cases involving massive sums have occurred. The Minister did not go into the detail on that, but there are valid points to bear in mind, such as the fact that the Americans operate a different system. Damages in that country are set by juries, which are notoriously generous to victims. Here, the reverse occurs, with damages set by judges, who are notoriously mean to victims and their dependants.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
    Mr. Cash rose—
    Mr. Williams: When I have finished making this point, I shall give way to both hon. Gentlemen, who can, if they wish, jump to the defence of the CBI.
    The second difference between this country and the United States is that there is an inducement for people there to take action because of the contingency fee system that operates in their legal system. There, it is in the interests of a lawyer to look for a wrong and then find a victim of it, in the knowledge that the lawyer will get a cut if he manages successfully to claim from a company or any other defendant, and the more he gets, the bigger his share.
    Nor must we forget that in America much of the extra cost has arisen because of what has happened in the medical sphere. Because of the existence—while it is allowed to survive—of the National Health Service in this country, that is less of an element in manufacturers' costs. However, as the Government achieve success with the spread of private medicine—inadequate though it has proved to be, with its lack of back-up and so on—that aspect will cause manufacturers more concern than has been the case in Britain in the past.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that insurance costs are a negligible part of overall costs, he should consult overseas. Will he accept that every insurance company and every underwriter would agree that to increase insurance costs to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman has described would not have a great effect on articles such as shoes, books and hats? However, it would have a devastating effect on products such as aircraft or anything involving advanced technology. The increase in costs would be enormous. The increase in costs might be such that the market might not be able to carry the load. This is being said by underwriters and by the industries that will have to bear enormously increased costs. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that there is a danger of a substantial increase in insurance costs for companies that manufacture complex products.
    Mr. Williams: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. If the information is available, it is a pity that it was not put before us this evening so that we could judge it for ourselves. The findings of the Royal Commission and the evidence that has been given by insurance companies seem to conflict with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but no doubt he knows better than they.
    Mr. Cash: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that awards made by judges recently have been increasing significantly. There is something slightly unreal with the American analogy. There is a tendency for a significant increase in the amounts that are being paid out by our courts. This is a factor that will have to be taken into account in future.
    Mr. Williams: I am only too happy for consumers that there is such a trend. Even if the hon. Gentleman considers comparisons at the higher levels, as he describes them, he will find that there is an enormous gap between levels in the United Kingdom and those in the United States. In fact, there is no basis for comparison.
    I recognise that it is difficult to advance an argument on development risk. However, the Minister eloquently argued on behalf of manufacturers running small businesses. He did not argue on behalf of those running small retail businesses. When referring to the impact of the proposals on small manufacturers, he was describing the fate of small retailers, which will continue until the measure is introduced. That seemed to cause him no deep concern.
    Does industry have the right to use the consumer as a guinea pig or as a testing area? The hon. Member for Southend, East shakes his head. I shall present him with an exact example. It is easier to carry out medical experiments on animals in the United States than it is in Britain. On the other hand, it is easier to carry out experimentation on humans in Britain than in the United States. That is the result of the United States strict liability legislation. The Germans have recognised that and they do not want Germany to be used as the test ground for large drug companies. That is why they have introduced strict liability legislation for the manufacturers of pharmaceutical products.
    Some of the scare stories do not always bear close analysis. The Japanese Government, for example, have introduced legislation that leads to the withdrawal of products that are deemed to be unsafe. At the beginning of a 10-year period, the Japanese were producing 1 per cent. of new drugs but now, 10 years later—this is despite tighter legislation—they are producing 20 per cent. of new drugs. I suspect that the purpose of many scare stories is to try to frighten us rather than describing what is likely to arise.
    The proposals before us would impose a duty on manufacturers to improve the quality of their products. Manufacturers will always tell us that they cannot meet higher quality standards. I remember an occasion when the British television industry was trying to secure sales of components to Japanese television producers in Britain. The British industry argued that the Japanese were sheltering behind a restrictive practice in demanding such high quality of product and component. Eventually, the British manufacturers met the revised standards. That has helped their own component manufacturing. I question whether the consumer should be used as an alternative to proper quality control and quality testing.
    First, where does the responsibility lie when a component of a product is defective? Is the case against the producer of the component or against the producer of the consumer product? I assume that it is against the latter, who in turn will have a fall back against the component manufacturer. I do not know, and it is important that we should have an answer. Secondly, if, for example, a

    827
    product is produced in Taiwan, the British consumer will have no case against the producer. However, will he lose the protection that he has at retail level against those who supply the Taiwanese product?
    In France, there is a strict liability. Does the British consumer who suffers damage from a French component get the benefit of the French system and therefore have a claim against the producer of an advanced technology product that in this country would use the state-of-the-art defence, or does the British consumer suffer the disadvantages of the system that we shall be operating?
    In saying that we give this proposition a fair wind, we recognise that there is a right of derogation and the possibility of review after 10 years. The Government have, however, been rather ham-handed in the way that they have steamrollered this through the House. Had they had proper consultation with the industry and their Back Benchers, there might have been better good will in the House.
    9.17 pm
    Mr. Fletcher: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I welcome the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, this directive has been around in some shape or form for about 10 years. Industry and other interests have been consulted extensively during this period and, following a comprehensive consultation on the 1979 draft, informal exchanges of view have taken place periodically as discussions on the directive progressed. I had a further meeting with the CBI just a few weeks ago.
    Although a formal round of consultations on the latest version of the draft was not possible, the points made by the industries consulted over the years were taken into account in the recent redrafting of certain details of the text. Further consultation with interested parties will take place before the implementation legislation is introduced. No one who has been involved in consultation over the years should have been taken by surprise by the contents of the draft.
    We have had repeated meetings with the Society of British Aerospace Companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked me to confirm that, and I do so. The Scrutiny Committee has already considered this subject more than once and a full explanatory memorandum, together with the revised text of the directive, was provided to the House on 1 July, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, will know.
    I am surprised that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) does not support the development risks defence. I cannot understand his unwillingness to accept that companies should not be expected to carry responsibility in cases where the extent of technical knowledge at the time the product was distributed could not have detected a defect in the product.
    As I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), he and the hon. Member for Yeovil share the Westland company. I do not know what consultation the hon. Gentleman has had with that firm, but I should be surprised if it had not urged him to support the development.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Minister will know that we are all subject to a good deal of lobbying, which we accept or
    828
    reject according to judgment. Does he agree that the state-of-the-art defence is not seen to be required by the German pharmaceutical industry, and that even the German compensation laws are stronger than ours in that they require proof that it was not the manufacturer's defect? Does he further agree that the state-of-the-art defence, which he has allowed to be included, would not protect consumers or those who suffer in cases such as those involving thalidomide or Opren? Is he aware that that is the black hole to which we object?
    Mr. Fletcher: I was about to deal with pharmaceuticals in Germany. A defective drug in this context will be one which does not provide the safety which can reasonably be expected of it, taking all of the circumstances into account, including its presentation—labelling, warnings, instructions and manner of marketing. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) talked about reasonable use, although not just in terms of pharmaceuticals. Unreasonable use of a product would be a defence.
    A drug would be judged by many factors in addition to its intrinsic chemical and physical properties. It would be for the courts to decide whether a drug is defective in the circumstances of each case. Factors such as the seriousness of the disease being treated and the correlation between estimated benefits and estimated risks will be relevant.
    Some people might argue that development risk defence emasculates the directive's provision for strict liability in respect of drugs and that it would let a modern thalidomide off the hook. It should be remembered that the test of the state of scientific and technological knowledge at the time is tough and dynamic. Given our existing knowledge, the manufacturers of thalidomide or of any other product likely to be given to pregnant women and which had not undergone adequate pre-clinical tests for teratogenic potential could not claim the development risk defence if they were to be on the market today. That is the best advice that I have and that I can give the hon. Member for Yeovil.
    The regime in Germany does not have development risk defence, but its definition of a defective product contains some of the elements of the state of the art. It is not quite such a black and white comparison as might be suggested.
    Mr. Ashdown: I apologise for pushing the Minister further about thalidomide, but I am sure he is aware that it is a matter of great concern. He carefully applied two different time contexts and said that we now have better means of checking products. If another thalidomide case came up under the state of the art, would not those who suffered be covered? Yes or no?
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is presenting his argument starkly and somewhat alarmingly. The directive would go a considerable way to prevent a recurrence. I cannot give a yes or no answer in such circumstances. The directive goes some considerable way to meet the alarm which the hon. Gentleman mentions—an alarm which should not be lightly raised in such matters.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned a provision on contributory negligence, especially when warnings are properly given. There is a provision in article 582 for contributory negligence. The importance of warnings and other aspects relevant to the presentation of

    829
    the product is pointed out in the definition of "defective product" in article 4. I hope my hon. Friend finds that helpful.
    I should like to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and his attack on the agriculture industry, or the fact that it is not included in the directive. In my opening remarks I gave the reason why. The exemption was considered necessary because farmers could not be expected to take responsibility for the vagaries of the climate, the soil and pollution caused by extraneous factors outside their control, all of which can cause the product to be defective. However, if it goes through any industrial processing, it comes within the terms of the directive. The producer of processed foods would have recourse against the supplier of defective meat, not under those terms, but under the normal contract. For example, if someone canning salmon or beef received a consignment that was off, he could take action against the supplier under normal contract terms.
    My hon. Friend was also firm in his comments on the aerospace industry. We accept that there are good arguments for a common regime without any derogations. That is what we are trying to achieve. We can see its importance, not least in the aerospace sector itself, which is international. The composition of the product, like the market, is almost certain to transcend national frontiers. However, the same can be said of other sectors that are dealt with in the directive, such as shipbuilding, drugs, computers and so on.
    I have to disagree with my hon. Friend when he says that the increase in insurance on aircraft would be devastating. If that were the case, the United States aircraft industry would have gone to the wall a long time ago. I see no reason why he should assume, in terms of insurance costs, that anything devastating would happen to our aircraft industry. That is one of the reasons why I criticised the comments made by the CBI about the cost of insurance. I do not believe that those exaggerated comments are justified.
    Mr. David Mudd: Can my hon. Friend help us in establishing the truth on the likely increase in insurance costs for the aerospace industry? Has he had any discussions with insurers and can he give us an idea of his views on that?
    Mr. Fletcher: I shall make some further comments on insurance in a moment. I wanted to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.
    Our evidence on insurance and the evidence collected by the European Commission came from 35 industrial sectors and conflicts with the remarks made by the aerospace industry itself. We believe that we have gone round all the industries with which we could reasonably discuss the matter and obtained their views as well as the views of the insurance industry, taking into account the situation in other countries and the regimes in those countries affecting product liability.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East also referred to the absence of proper harmonisation creating uncertainty. We believe that the proposed package provides greater harmonisation and certainty and that it is the only realistic alternative to continuing to debate the matter, as we have done for many years, or taking the path of no harmonisation at all. That may suit my hon. Friend, but the Government could not support that view.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend said that he was not creating uncertainty. Does he accept that the derogation can be overturned by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers in 10 years' time, whether or not the Government want it, and whether or not 630 Members of Parliament vote against it? If that is not uncertainty, what is?
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not accept that the derogation could be overturned by a majority vote in the Council, because under article 100 of the treaty a unanimous vote is required. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will the Minister stick to that?"] Yes, of course I stick to that. I cannot foretell what changes will take place in the Community during the next 10 years, but any changes would require a unanimous decision. Clearly, my right hon. and hon. Friends, who will consider these matters at a conference which will take place shortly, will take into account, not merely the immediate position of the United Kingdom, but matters concerning our future.
    Mr. Cash: As my hon. Friend says, the directive is introduced under article 100, which deals with the harmonisation and approximation of laws, as set out in the title to the debate. I am puzzled that harmonisation under article 100, which requires unanimity, could be changed only if at a subsequent date the voting arrangements in the treaty were amended. What is the point of introducing a provision under article 100 in an attempt to achieve harmonisation when, by virtue of what my hon. Friend has said, it is clear that many member states are not prepared to accept the provisions of the directive? It leaves me with a degree of disquiet that we are following the route of article 100 when the objectives of the directive are not accepted by member states.
    Mr. Fletcher: The objects of the directive are accepted by other member states. Two derogations hav e been agreed—one on financial limits, and one on development risks. My hon. Friend will not wish to exaggerate the position, because the directive achieves considerable harmonisation on product liability within the Community.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
    Mr. Fletcher: I am trying to answer all the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked.
    Mr. Taylor: This is my last question. My hon. Friend explained that at present article 100 regulations are subject to unanimous vote, which is an important safeguard. The Government put forward proposals to the Council of Ministers about reducing the impact of the veto and said that we would agree to remove the veto on many issues, except those involving a supreme issue of national importance. Will he assure us that article 100 of the treaty will still require unanimous consent? Is that the Government's position?
    Mr. Fletcher: That is the present position. My right hon. and hon. Friends are probably going into discussions on these matters, and I cannot say during this debate what position they will take.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked what would happen in the next 10 years if there were a change of Government. I am sure that he can think of many actions which a Labour or Lib-Lab Government could take which would be much more damaging to British industry than changing this directive, which they could do.

    831
    Indeed, if one is producing a list of the damage that such a Government could do to British industry, one would not begin with the subject under discussion this evening.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North supported the directive, and I am grateful for that. He was worried about what might happen during the next 10 years. I believe that I have just answered that point. He and my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) asked whether there might be a burden on business. I answered that point in my opening speech, when I said that it is not an unnecessary new burden on business. It merely corrects an anomaly in existing law and puts the large manufacturer and the importer on the same footing as the small retailer. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. My hon. Friends seem to have forgotten that the small retailer is already subject to strict liability under the law of contract.
    The question which the House will wish to address in concluding the debate is: who benefits from the directive? The consumer will benefit from the injection of certainty into this area of the law throughout the Community, and will benefit especially from the ability to claim compensation without having to prove negligence. Retailers will benefit, to the extent that consumers will now be able to sue the manufacturer of the product, or the importer, direct, whereas at present only the immediate supplier—usually the retailer—is strictly liable for defective products.
    British industry will benefit from the clearly stated development risks defence. Although it will not be given the protection of that defence in export markets, where the
    832
    importing country does not have such a defence, British industry may have a slight advantage over its competitors in that it will be protected from development risk liability in its domestic market.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9427/79, draft Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of all Members States concerning liability for defective products and of the Explanatory Memorandum by the Department of Trade and Industry dated 1st July 1985; and supports the Government's intention to have the Directive adopted at the earliest opportunity.

    Liability for Defective Products
      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

        TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
        That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
        Question agreed to.

        AGRICULTURE
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
        That the draft Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
        Question agreed to.

    Chile
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
    9.37 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I hope that this debate will finish in good time so that my good and hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can explain the effects of monetarism in Britain, as I hope to explain the effects of monetarism in Chile during the past 12 years.
    In two months' time, we shall commemorate the 12th anniversary of the coup in Chile, when the democratically elected Chilean Government were removed in one of the most vicious and bloody coups that there has been for many decades anywhere in the world. The ramifications of the coup continue to be felt by the people of Chile, and they have had a grave effect on relations between Britain and Chile. That is the subject of my debate.
    It is worth recalling that, during the three years before the coup which removed the Government of Salvador Allende from office, there was a process of destabilisation of the Government by multinational companies and by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. A consistent programme of attacks was made on that Government by many Western European and other Governments, which did nothing to support them and everything to try to remove them from office. Indeed, towards the end of their life, that Government were faced with impossible problems as the military prepared for a coup.
    I can quote from an interview between Orlando Saenz and President Allende just before the coup, and published in 1980. When they discussed whether there could be some rapprochement or relationship with the armed forces, he said to the President:
    "But, Mr. President, you have nothing to offer. It's a waste of time to make a pact with you. You're a living corpse, you're useless. No politician with a minimal degree of skill will make a pact with you, for the simplest of reasons: he doesn't need to."
    He went on to say there was going to be a military coup against the Government, a Government which had been elected by 43 per cent. of the people of Chile and which had gained a great deal of support during their lifetime.
    The relationship between the coup, the life of the people of Chile and the Government of General Pinochet is close to the people of this country. Many Chileans sought refuge in Great Britain after the coup in 1973. Many Chilean people live in this country as asylum-seekers and refugees, and they read with horror about the mounting violence and the horror of life that many of the poorest people of Chile face all the the time.
    It is worth recalling that the former Minister for Trade visited Santiago in October 1980. In a report which was widely circulated in El Mercurio Weekly Report, a Chilean newspaper, he said on his visit to Chile that his experience of the Chilean economy was that it
    "is very similar to what we are trying to develop now in Great Britain."
    He was asked what aspects of the economic policies he found so similar and he went on to describe his Government's belief in cutting state expenditure, state bureaucracy and taxes on profits, and removing controls and restrictions on prices and wages, the exchange rate and investment overseas. The Minister went on to say that he
    834
    wished to "break up the monopoly of nationalised enterprises" and he wished the Chilean Government well in their economic experiment.
    In many ways, that encompasses a lot of the thinking of the present Tory Government's concern with Chile. A 12-year experiment in monetarism was going on in Chile and the cost to its people has been high. In 1974, just after the coup, the unemployment rate was 9·2 per cent. By 1982 it had risen to 28·3 per cent. The index of real wages was taken as 65·1 in 1974. It had gone down from 100 at the time of the coup and had risen to only 82 in 1982. In other words, the Chilean people were 20 per cent. worse off at the end of a 12-year experiment. Consumption in the richest households in Chile had gone up by 15 per cent. but for the poorest people consumption had gone down by 31 per cent. That again is the result of 12 years of monetarism.
    What is the relationship between Britain and this murderous dictatorship in which so many people have died during the 12-year period? There have been states of siege, there has been unrest, and at one stage questions were asked about whether or not the British ambassador should have been restored to Chile in 1980, as he was. The Conservative Government which restored the ambassador to Chile said, and I quote from the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office who is now destroying our railways:
    "We have used our ambassadors wherever appropriate or necessary to follow up particular cases involving human rights in a large number of countries: this is an important reason for having an ambassador in Chile. When it comes to human rights. this Government prefers action to words."
    If they prefer action to words, why is it that this so-called constructive dialogue has been so monumentally ineffective in influencing the Government of Chile and their behaviour? I can give figures which show the deterioration of human rights in Chile between 1982 and 1984. In 1982, there were 1,789 political detentions in Chile. In 1983, there were 14,515 detentionss in one year. If the equivalent figure of detentions were applied in this country, it would be between 75,000 and 100,000 people detained in one year. In the six months between January and June 1984, there were 2,981 detentions.
    I could go on through a whole series of statistics of this kind—for example, the number of people killed either by the police or in so-called confrontations, the number of people who disappeared, and the number of certified tortures, which rose to 432 during 1983, the year when the British Government were supposed to be maintaining a policy of constructive dialogue with the dictatorship of General Pinochet in Chile.
    There are specific cases and specific quotes. Many cases have been referred to the Foreign Office and to various Ministers, and I should like to raise the case of Pedro Fernandez Lembach, who is a political prisoner in Chile. His companyẽro is a member of my union, the National Union of Public Employees, and the British Government have given entry clearance for Pedro to come to this country when he is released from prison. I raise his case not because his life is very different from the lives of many others but because it is a case about which there is great public concern.
    I quote the statement made by Constanza, who is also a political refugee. She says:
    "Pedro and I were arrested together in May 1980 by the CNI"—
    the secret police force—

    835
    "on trumped-up charges of illegal possession of arms and manufacture of explosives. I saw him tortured, but managed to get released from prison and leave Chile. Pedro is still in jail and is seriously ill. After waiting for three years for his case to come up, he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment and four years' exile."
    Although he has been granted his visa, he has not been able to come here because he is still held.
    Merely to quote the violations of human rights which are so common, so appalling and so tragic in Chile is one thing. The reason that I raise this matter on the Adjournment is not just to give some emphasis to the appalling statistics to which I have been able to refer. It is also to emphasise what I believe is a very close working and constructive relationship between the British Government and the Government of Chile.
    During the past few months, a number of documents have been released secretly from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, one of which was sent to me. It was later reprinted in the New Statesman. It demonstrates two facts. First, British Government Ministers have a clear policy of maintaining arms sales to Chile. I quote as an example the sale of the Centaur, which is made by Laird (Anglesey) Limited—a part of the Laird group—and which is an armed vehicle used for crowd and riot control. Its purpose is to kill people, yet the British Government expect us to believe that the Centaur is part of the arms trade which is normally restricted to weapons that cannot be used for internal repression.
    I ask the Minister to say what the Centaur project is for if it is not for internal repression. One vehicle has been sold, and it is clear from answers in this House and answers to questions from Lord Hatch in the other place that it is the intention to sell more of those armed vehicles to Chile.
    Recently a letter was published in The Guardian about this matter. During a meeting with the Minister of State at the Foreign Office it was said that any weapon could be used as a weapon of aggression; a pen could be used as a weapon of aggression if someone cared to use it to attack someone else. Mr. Graham Davy said in his letter published in The Guardian on 24 June:
    "Quite so. And the 300 Centaur half-track vehicles which the Government is considering selling to General Pinochet might be used for taking old ladies on picnic outings in the countryside round Santiago."
    They might well be, but their purpose is repression. They are repressive vehicles.
    The issue of the sale of arms was raised by staff within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after the state of siege was imposed in November 1984. I quote from a document sent to the Minister by Mr. Coates in the South America department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He says:
    "In response to the recent deterioration in the political situation in Chile, in particular the declaration of a State of Siege on 6 November, the Secretary of State has called an office meeting to consider a policy on our bilateral relations."
    That was to be held before the Minister's departure.
    "I should … be grateful for your comments on … the extent to which we can dissuade the commercial banks from making further loans to Chile; the extent to which ECGD can be asked to withdraw existing offers of cover and review its market limits downwards; whether our delegation to the World Bank…could be instructed, on political grounds, to refuse approval for new loans to Chile; whether approval given to Fairey Engineering to tender refurbishment of a civilian research reactor
    836
    could be revoked and future applications refused, on grounds of other than non-proliferation considerations; whether any other trade sanctions could be envisaged."
    It also asks whether defence sales to Chile could be stopped. It lists them, and they are very substantial. They include the Centaur, Blowpipe, Seacat, Rapier, ex Royal Navy survey ships, land-based Harriers, Jaguars and naval Lynx helicopters. What will they be used for, if not for internal repression against the people of Chile? Or is it because the Britsh Government wish to have a close relationship with a well-armed Chilean junta that can be used as part of the south Atlantic strategy and the Falklands enterprise? I believe that to be very much the case. It is one of the two reasons why the British Government are prepared to continue to sell arms to Chile and to soft pedal on the considerable abuses of human rights in Chile.
    These are very serious matters and it is regrettable, to say the least, that there can be only a fairly short Adjournment debate on this subject. However, in the near future there will have to be a full debate. The British Government will have to answer for their policy towards Chile and all Latin American countries, particularly the Latin American dictatorships. It is significant that the British Government are the only Government to hold back. It is only the British embassy in Santiago that does not condemn the violation of human rights. It is only the British Government who do not condemn the violation of human rights in the strident terms in which it is condemned by so many other European Governments.
    The general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union wrote recently to the Foreign Secretary and asked for an undertaking from the British Government that they would cease arms sales to Chile because of the violation of human rights in Chile. The general secretary at that time, Moss Evans, mentioned a number of people who had been murdered recently by the Chilean armed forces. In his reply the Foreign Secretary said:
    "I can assure you that we have repeatedly expressed our concern about human rights violations to the Chilean authorities. There can be no doubt about our views … You also ask about arms sales: it is indeed our policy not to allow British companies to sell arms to Chile which in our judgment are likely to be used for internal repression."
    In 1973 the Moneda palace in Santiago was bombed and strafed by Hawker Hunter jets made in this country and flown by pilots trained in this country. The training of the Chilean armed forces continues in this way. British arms have been used to gun down the Chilean people. It is an absolute disgrace. The British Government should end all arms sales to this odious regime which is destroying the lives of so many people.
    A visit was paid recently to this country by a very remarkable woman, Maria Maluenda, who has suffered so much and who has seen so much violence. During the Allende Government she was the ambassador to Vietnam and saw what the B52 bombers were doing to the people of Vietnam. She witnessed the coup in Chile in 1973. More recently she suffered the terror of hearing and seeing her son being murdered at point blank range, his body being mutilated afterwards by the armed forces. She came to this country to seek support for what she is trying to achieve for Chile, which is a peaceful future. When asked what could be done she said:
    "I think you can do a lot. If you see the resolution of the European Parliament passed unanimously a short while ago, there are suggestions in that resolution that should be taken up not only by the governments and official organisations but by

    837
    people in different countries … I would like to say that I am here because I decided to travel to denounce these latest assassinations, these latest crimes. I speak in the name of thousands of women—not only women, but fathers, brothers, sisters, children who have suffered in my country just as we are suffering at this moment. I pray that you do not take my words as the words of one person, but as the words of thousands and thousands of people. The wife of my son had her father arrested eight years ago and it has never been possible to find out what has happened to him."
    It is the daily life of many people in Chile to see their friends and loved ones removed from them, to hear of beatings, tortures and rape.
    I received a letter recently from Santiago—I shall not give the name for fear of reprisals against that person, which in itself is an indictment—in which that person says:
    "They kidnap and make marks in the body of the people after advising them not to say anything to anybody. Fortunately the people have denounced those threats. The new modalities with women are to rape them, as the case of the law student, who was raped and three times kidnapped. To live in this atmosphere is not easy."
    I trust that the Minister will tell us why the Government continue to supply arms to Chile, why they continue to allow members of the Chilean armed forces to be trained in this country and why they do not take seriously the many denunciations of the Chilean regime and break our arms link with it. The Government should make sure that our embassy in Santiago takes up violations of human rights rather than the promotion of arms sales by so many private sector arms companies in this country.
    9.55 pm
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Chile is an important country, both in itself and in what it stands for, so I welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has provided to discuss the country, although I do not agree with everything that he said.
    The Chilean situation must be seen in the wider Latin American context and I should like to take the opportunity to report to the House on a three-week visit to Central America from which I have just returned.
    My companions on the trip, which was sponsored by War on Want, were the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and Mr. Campbell Christie, the general secretary-elect of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. We visited Cuba, Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and we had planned to visit Guatemala, but I regret to have to say that we were told that we would not be welcome there.
    In politics, as in life generally, one's conclusions tend to follow from one's starting point, so where should we begin our analysis of the vast and complicated imbroglio in Central America?
    Should one start, as does the Kissinger report, by remarking on the depth and gravity of the economic and social tensions that grip the region? Should one begin, as do many in Washington, by emphasising the novelty of the intrusion of Soviet, East European and Cuban influences into a formerly undisputedly American sphere of influence? Or should one rather refer as a starting point for our inquiries to that sphere of influence and to the economic, social and political structures that it has created, sustained or merely permitted? I am sure that that
    838
    would be the starting point of the hon. Member for Islington, North, who has emphasised the importance of the American role in Chile.
    I am not sure that it is possible to generalise about those different factors affecting the five republics of Central America. The states share a common origin—
    Dame Judith Hart: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to direct his remarks to the issue of the debate, which is Chile, or to Central America?
    Mr. Jackson: The right hon. Lady will find that I will make frequent references to Chile. The states share a common origin in the Spanish colonial kingdom of Guatemala and each country displays on its arms the image of five volcanos—remarkably apt symbols of their politics as well as their sense that they have something special in common.
    The reality of the situation is that these countries are as different from each other as were, say, the city states of ancient Greece—
    Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely sure about the title of the debate? I understand that it is
    "United Kingdom relations with Chile".
    That is a specific title and wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of that fact. He seems to be covering a number of states that are unrelated to the debate
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It may' help the House if I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) to the subject of the debate. It is on the Adjournment motion, which is traditionally rather wide, but the subject is
    "United Kingdom relations with Chile"
    and not with Central America generally.
    Mr. Jackson: I took the opportunity of discussing with your colleague who was in the Chair before you, Mr. Speaker, my handling of the subject.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Order. The hon. Gentleman is challenging the Chair.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful for the protection of the chairman of the GLC—
    Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The debate has a specific title which is
    "United Kingdom relations with Chile".
    If the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) is trying to delay the House, perhaps he should tell us why. Alternatively, will he direct his remarks to the subject of the debate?
    Mr. Speaker: I have already said that. We must stick to the subject chosen by the hon. Member who was successful in the ballot.
    Mr. Jackson: I do not propose to delay the House. I think that the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with my conclusions if he will allow me to explain them. I shall make constant references to Chile, but I am talking about the wider Latin-American context, in which the Chilean problem must be seen.
    I return to my argument. These countries have something in common, but they are different from one another, as were the city states of ancient Greece.
    It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
    Mr. Jackson: Politically the crucial differences between these countries seem to flow from the varying degrees to which the central American republics have been able to transfer their power to the civilian middle classes. Costa Rica, a country of purely European settlement with no history of Indian serfdom, is at the most advanced end of the scale. It is a stable, bourgeois democracy, established in 1948, and it dealt with the problem—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying widely now and I must ask him to direct his speech to British relations with Chile and not with the rest of central America.
    Mr. Jackson: I shall cease to speak in this debate because I should like the opportunity to report on the visit. I am sorry that Opposition Members have taken exception to my remarks. I do not think that they would have been dissatisfied with what I had to say. I did not intend to delay the House, and I look forward to discussing these matters on another occasion.
    10.1 pm
    Dame Judith Hart: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), but some of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to speak to the subject of the Adjournment. The hon. Gentleman must look for his opportunities at another time.
    I wish to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I had the great privilege of speaking from my Front Bench when we had our first debate in November 1973, following the coup in Chile, when I was able to quote the last speech by Salvador Allende.
    We are now 12 years on. Government Members are comparatively uninformed about some of the aspects of julian history. The Government should bear in mind that Chile was a democracy from 1830 onwards. The Government who were brought down by military force and assassination in 1973 were elected within the democratic constitution of Chile.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Dame Judith Hart: Of course I will, if the hon. Gentleman is better informed than I.
    Mr. Howarth: I am aware that the right hon. Lady is very knowledgeable about these matters. I know how well informed she is about human rights violations since 1973. Perhaps she can tell us all about the violations before then under the regime of San Salvador Allende, whom she worships, how land was confiscated and how the Allende Government flouted the constitution and congress. Perhaps the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, who view everything through their Marxist spectacles, will tell the House about those matters.
    Dame Judith Hart: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) is not only uninformed, but he is trivial and cheap. I do not know whether he went to a public school, but he sounds like a typical Right-wing public schoolboy.
    840
    There were no political prisoners at any time during the Government of Unidad Popular. Chile led the way in land reform. I sympathise with the Minister, because he has to cope with a small but vociferous element on his Back Benches.
    I am sure that the Minister will say that he sympathises with the human rights cause. He will say that it is good that the siege has been lifted but that many gross violations of human rights continue.
    I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Government have supported all the EEC resolutions condemning the abuses of human rights in Chile. I am sure that he will also tell us—as the Government frequently do—that the Government will not supply arms intended to be used against the civilian population. He will tell us all those things.
    But I do not know what the Minister will say to the fact that the Finance Minister of Chile is said to be in London now, or shortly to be so, to discuss with Barclay's Bank the financial assistance that could be made by British banks to Chile. I do not know what he will say about the general reaction from a number of delegations that have been to see the Minister of State, who does not impress those delegations with her deep sympathy for the violations of human rights in Chile.
    The Government's attitude has been at least partly influenced by the relationship between Chile and Argentina. Because of the Falklands fracas, the Government are suspended in ambivalence between the EEC's utter condemnation of the abuses of human rights in Chile—and along that front the Government have always followed reluctantly, several days behind—and the American enthusiasm, and, perhaps, our Government's earlier enthusiasm for the monetarist experiment in Chile.
    I was fortunate enough to have a meeting today with someone whom I imagine the Minister may know—the vice-president of the National party in Chile who is on a visit to London and who will be meeting the Minister of State tomorrow or the day after. The message from every element in Chile is that there is tremendous progress in building up a unanimity of opposition to Pinochet and that the effort to achieve a return to democracy at this point demands much stronger support from the democracies of the north and the west.
    I hope that the Minister, who will no doubt say what he has to when he replies, will take a message to his officials and the Foreign Secretary that we demand more. If we believe in democracy and freedom, more is needed from this Government on behalf of democratic human rights in Chile than we have seen so far.
    10.7 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has done a great service to the House. I wish to ask one precise, specific question. On 7 June, the New Statesman, under the by-line of Patrick Forbes and Duncan Campbell, published what purported to be a Foreign Office document. My hon. Friend referred to it, and I shall read it as printed. It states:
    "Chile: contingency planning.
    1. In response to the recent deterioration in the political situation in Chile, in particular the declaration of a State of Seige on 6 November, the Secretary of State has called an office meeting to consider policy on our bilateral relations, to be held before his departure for Peking on 18 December … striking

    841
    political gesture on our part. But, it could also carry unacceptable penalties. The Chileans would regard an embargo as a major shift of British policy; and this could, in turn, hazard the defence and other cooperation we enjoy over the Falklands. Also relevant here is Chile's agreement with Argentina over the Beagle channel; this could, in turn, make it easier for the Chileans to reduce the level of their cooperation with us if they were so tempted."
    My question is, what precisely is the quid pro quo? Does not the House deserve to be told precisely what the agreements are mentioned in the Foreign Office document as between the odious junta of General Pinochet and our country?
    It is about time, once again, that there was a certain amount of candour from Governments on such issues. If there is a quid pro quo, if there is an agreement—and no one has suggested that it is not a Foreign Office document—to what are we referring? What exactly is the agreement? What is the quid pro quo? I hope that it is in no way to do with nuclear capability, because that has been said. We want to know precisely what the quid pro quo over the Falklands is and what has been kept from the House of Commons.
    10.10 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for selecting this subject for debate, because he reflects the view of many people, inside and outside the House, that the British Government have not responded sufficiently to the events in Chile.
    The right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) will recall the occasion when I took part with her in a deputation—there has since been another which she attended, plus another in which I took part with her hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—to the Foreign Office, when we were grossly disappointed by the stone wall with which we were met by the Minister's noble Friend.
    We asked for a sign of recognition that we should be doing more and that we should be living up to the standards expected of us by our colleagues in the United Nations and the European Community. We asked, for example, whether the British ambassador to Chile could be recalled to review the state of human rights, following the lifting of the state of seige, to see what possibilities existed to bring influence to bear there through the churches, the opposition political parties and others.
    We were anxious to know that the British Government did not intend to go down the road—the hon. Member for Islington, North made it clear that they seemed to be prepared to go down it—of seeking tenders for arms exports to Chile, with the clear implication that they would be sent to Chile, when ordered, in considerable numbers.
    We must look to the Minister for assurances on those matters, because we received none from his noble Friend. In view of the nature of the regime there and the fact that arms that might be supplied could be used for suppression and continued violation of human rights, we must be assured that any question of such arms supplies will first be debated in Parliament. The Government must not just take executive action in the matter.
    As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, the Government must be open with the House, not allow people to come to Britain for consultations—indeed, afford them quasi-official, if not official, recognition—and thereby show to the press of the world
    842
    that the British Government and the people of Britain are happy with what is going on because everything is being done in an open way. That is far from the truth now, and the Government are denying the people the ability to react in accordance with the standards that we have set ourselves.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the internal Foreign Office document of November 1984 the civil servants said that on every criterion—trade, aid, military sales, repression and loss of human rights—the Chileans came off badly? It seems, nevertheless, that that Government still enjoy the approval of the British Government.
    Mr. Hughes: Not only am I aware of the document, but the hon. Gentleman may be aware that when we, as a delegation, went to the Foreign Office recently, it was not denied that the document, which had been leaked—it was accepted that it had been leaked—clearly made the case that the action by the British Government could be influential, not only on the issue of arms, but on that of human rights. It was accepted that if the British Government said more clearly what they should be saying, that would have a clear political effect.
    The only fear, as reflected in that document, was that that would cause people—presumably hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—to ask for more action. That is no justification for saying, "We are not prepared to move at all because there might be demands for us to go further." I urge the Minister to show a chink of light to the families of the hundreds of people who, since Pinochet came to power, have lived with death and in fear.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that when a delegation went to the Foreign Office this morning to present a petition containing about 35,000 signatures—I was a member of it—it was told by a senior civil servant that the arms trade was seen as being effectively neutral in terms of supplying Chile.
    Mr. Hughes: Nothing surprises me. One of the tragedies of the Government' s foreign policy in the eyes of some of my colleagues, and probably in the eyes of most Opposition Members of this place, is that we can condone trade in arms without realising that that has a direct effect on the human rights of individuals in the rest of the world. The sooner the Government understand that message, the sooner they might respond to their duties to fellow citizens and to those who are far less well off and far less able to express their feelings about these matters than we are here.
    10.16 pm
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Renton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on his success in obtaining the Adjournment debate and on choosing the subject of Britain's relations with Chile. I thank the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) for contributing to the debate. Her interest in South America and human rights is very well known. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson)—I note that he is no longer in the Chamber—for his wide-ranging contribution.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North referred to 12 years of monetarism in Chile and implied that thar was perhaps one of the main reasons for the economic

    843
    difficulties that Chile faces now. I do not think that we shall enter into a great debate about monetarism, especially international monetarism, in this debate. However, I put the thought to him that perhaps Chile is in economic trouble primarily because of weak copper prices—copper having always been Chile's prime export—and high international interest rates, and not so much because of Chicago-school policies. Perhaps those two factors are more fundamental reasons for Chile's economic difficulties than monetarist doctrines.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North chose to initiate the debate under the heading, as it were, of the United Kingdom's relations with Chile, but he elected to spend most of his time—this did not surprise me—on the internal situation in Chile and particular human rights cases. I wish to underline the areas in which the hon. Gentleman, the Government and I personally share agreement. First, the internal situation in Chile, especially human rights, must be of great importance to us in determining the manner in which our relations are conducted. Secondly, the Government fully share the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and those of others who have contributed to this brief but inportant debate, about human rights in Chile. We do not agree with every allegation in detail but we are extremely concerned about human rights in Chile and we regret that, against the current trend in other South American countries, Chile is not making the fast progress towards the return of democracy that the Government would like to see.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North and I differ on the means by which to achieve the end of helping to improve human rights in Chile. The Government do not believe that the isolation of Chile, an arms embargo or even the general economic sanctions for which the hon. Gentleman calls, would be effective. Nor do we think it effective or right to single out Chile for criticism that can be applied equally to other countries. We have normal relations with Chile—
    Mr. Tony Banks rose—
    Mr. Renton: I do not propose to give way. I do not think that it is normal to give way to interventions in the course of replying to an Adjournment debate. Furthermore, I believe that someone else wishes to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye before the end of the debate.
    We have normal relations with Chile, and this allows us, in the way that the last Labour Government denied themselves the opportunity, to make our concern known, at the highest level, to the Chilean Government. As the hon. Member knows, we have had diplomatic relations with Chile since 1980, when we restored representations at ambassadorial level. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who was then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, informed the House of the decision, and the hon. Member for Islington, North has already quoted these remarks. My right hon. Friend said then that one factor in the decision to restore diplomatic relations had been to enable us to present our views on human rights and on other matters at a higher level and with greater impact. This is a good reason—it was valid then, and it is valid today. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think of the reasons for it.
    844
    It is obviously important that our ambassador in Santiago should be in a position to speak frankly to senior members of the Chilean Government about all aspects of relations between Britain and Chile—including the impact that events in Chile itself can have on the nature and conduct of our bilateral relations. He has been able to bring home to the Chilean Government. in a quiet and reasoned manner, the very real concern in this country at recent events in Chile and the wish by all Chile's friends that the Government and democratic opposition in that country should get together to agree a programme for the restoration of Chile's traditional pattern of democratic government.
    I can give the hon. Gentleman a specific example. Following the lifting of the state of siege. we sent instructions to our ambassador in Santiago requiring him to call, as he did, on the Chilean Foreign Minister, on 11 July, to express our hope that the Chilean Government would be able to move beyond the lifting of the state of siege to more substantial progress in the restoration of full political freedoms. None of this would be possible if—as some hon. Members urge—we were to withdraw our ambassador from Santiago.
    The hon. Member referred to the particular case of Senor Fernandez Lembach. I have had representations about this case. As I told the hon. Member on 3 June, Senor Lembach is a Chilean national. We have no formal standing to intervene with the Chilean authorities on his behalf. We have made clear to the Chilean authorities that if Senor Lembach's sentence were commuted to one of exile, we would issue him with a United Kingdom visa. The Chilean Ministry of Justice unfortunately informed our ambassador in April. that it is not yet prepared to consider commuting the sentence. We shall continue to monitor the case carefully.
    We make our views known in other ways. When, in February this year, a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office official visited Chile he made human rights a point of special concern in all his conversations. In March this year, we voted in favour of a resolution critical of Chile at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We also remain in frequent and close touch with our Community partners about the situation in Chile and take appropriate opportunities to set on record our joint position.
    Therefore, I cannot accept the statement that we do not do our part, as a country that has diplomatic relations with Chile, in making as carefully and fully known in Santiago as possible our feelings on the subject, representing the views of the people.
    The hon. Gentleman then hinted at the existence of some kind of secret defence treaty with Chile. However, I remind him of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's specific assurance to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 28 January that no treaties have been signed with the Government of Chile since 1981.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to papers that have been leaked from the Overseas Development Administration. The hon. Member for Linlithgow quoted from a recent newspaper. The House would not expect me to comment on leaked documents. The documents in question were option papers prepared by officials. I am sure that hon. Members would want me to maintain the

    845
    constitutional distinction between Ministers, who decide policy, and civil servants, who submit advice and attend to the execution of policy.
    Our relations with Chile include a defence element such as training. visits by senior personnel and the supply of loan service personnel. Apart from a period in 1982—
    Mr. Corbyn rose—
    Mr. Renton: No. I am not proposing to give way—I do not think that it is customary in the winding up speech of an Adjournment debate. We have lent only one officer at any one time.
    The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should apply an arms embargo. We know that there are firmly held views on this subject in certain quarters. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, a delegation which included him visited the Foreign and Commonwealth Office this morning to hand in a petition. I have made clear previously, notably when answering the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary questions, that we do not believe that a total embargo imposed by Britain in isolation would be effective. We do not have plans for imposing such an embargo.
    Our policy on arms sales to Chile nevertheless reflects our concern about human rights abuses, and rightly so. We take great care not to approve the sale to Chile of items that we believe could be used for internal repression. All such equipment requires an export licence before it can be sold overseas. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we consider each item carefully and exercise our judgment prudently. The procedures are painstaking, responsible and, we believe, appropriate.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North asked me about Centaur. I am glad that he did. In the perhaps somewhat different circumstances of January 1984, a temporary export licence was granted for a demonstration Centaur vehicle. It was unarmed and unarmoured and no sale of a Centaur has ever been made to Chile. The vehicle is a half track Land-Rover especially suited to use in deserts such as Chile's Atacama desert. If a firm sale had resulted, a firm application for a new export licence would have had
    846
    to be made. In that hypothetical case, we should look into the request carefully, taking into account all the circumstances prevailing at the time. The hon. Gentleman has made a good fuss about Centaur. I understood from the company involved that arrangements are in hand to return the vehicle to Britain and that there is little prospect of an order.
    We also seek other means of influencing opinion in Chile. There has been some criticism of our recent contact with members of the Chilean National Academy of Political and Strategic Studies who visited Britain at the end of June. I should like to ask Opposition Members who might have been critical of that how they expect such officers to learn about the constitutional role of the armed forces in a parliamentary democracy if they never leave their country and are not exposed to democratic opinion. On the occasion of this visit our visitors' programme included lectures and discussions at London university—the Institute of Latin American studies—and at the Civil Service college.
    We should consider whether there is an analogy here with overseas students who come from non-democratic countries, but, when in Britain, have an opportunity to study parliamentary democracy, to see the effect of a free press and to study how our Parliament works. I suggest that there is an analogy. The visitors have an opportunity to explore a wide variety of issues, including the role of the Army in a democratic society. That can only be beneficial to their education and development.
    Chile has a long tradition of democracy. That is always brought home to us by visiting representatives of Chile's democratic parties. They have made it clear that, although they welcome our encouragement in keeping that tradition alive, it is for the Chilean people to decide the future course that their country will take. They appreciate contact—
    The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

WALES
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  "Lifting the Burden"
  "Lifting the Burden"
  Welsh Language (Expenditure)
  Welsh Language (Expenditure)
  Tan-Yr-Unts (Road Scheme)
  Tan-Yr-Unts (Road Scheme)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Inmos
  Inmos
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Street Collections (Prosecutions)
  Street Collections (Prosecutions)
  Dr. Mark Patterson
  Dr. Mark Patterson
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Repatriation Scheme
  Repatriation Scheme
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Refugees and Asylum
  Refugees and Asylum
  Ms. Boi Thi Minh
  Ms. Boi Thi Minh
  Illegal Entrants
  Illegal Entrants
  Sexual Offences Act 1985
  Sexual Offences Act 1985
  Pucklechurch Remand Centre
  Pucklechurch Remand Centre
  Prisoners (Wages)
  Prisoners (Wages)
  Stonehenge (Incident)
  Stonehenge (Incident)
  Prisoners' Medical Treatment
  Prisoners' Medical Treatment
  Mrs. Mabel Achuinihu
  Mrs. Mabel Achuinihu
  West Midlands Police
  West Midlands Police
  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  Prisoners (Private Clinics)
  Prisoners (Private Clinics)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Gloucester Place Fire
  Gloucester Place Fire
  Mr. Harold Roberts
  Mr. Harold Roberts
  Miss Hilda Murrell
  Miss Hilda Murrell
  Crime Statistics (West Midlands)
  Crime Statistics (West Midlands)
  Strip Searches (Ports of Entry)
  Strip Searches (Ports of Entry)
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Sumrie Clothes plc, Leeds
  Sumrie Clothes plc, Leeds
  Prisoners (Tranquillisers)
  Prisoners (Tranquillisers)
  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Spain (Extradition Treaty)
  Spain (Extradition Treaty)
ENERGY
  Petrol Price
  Petrol Price
  Wave Power
  Wave Power
PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Ian MacGregor (Payments)
  Mr. Ian MacGregor (Payments)
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Sir Robert Armstrong (Speech)
  Sir Robert Armstrong (Speech)
  European Community (Food Aid)
  European Community (Food Aid)
  European Community (Cereal Prices)
  European Community (Cereal Prices)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  India
  India
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
  Caribbean
  Caribbean
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Falkland Islands Development Corporation
  Falkland Islands Development Corporation
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Foreign Language Report
  Foreign Language Report
  Support Grants
  Support Grants
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Temporary Admission Students
  Temporary Admission Students
  EC (Scientific Studies)
  EC (Scientific Studies)
  Graham Report
  Graham Report
  Micro-Electronics
  Micro-Electronics
  Unemployment Videos
  Unemployment Videos
  Allowances
  Allowances
  Further Education (Women)
  Further Education (Women)
  Incidental Expenses
  Incidental Expenses
  Unemployed People
  Unemployed People
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Tropical Forests
  Tropical Forests
  Pharmaceuticals (Patent Law)
  Pharmaceuticals (Patent Law)
  Overseas Ministerial Visits
  Overseas Ministerial Visits
  Textile and Clothing (Imports)
  Textile and Clothing (Imports)
  Aerosol Containers
  Aerosol Containers
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Chrysoidine Dye
  Chrysoidine Dye
  Grants
  Grants
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  EC (Trade Barriers)
  EC (Trade Barriers)
  British Companies (Third World Income)
  British Companies (Third World Income)
  Sumrie Clothes plc
  Sumrie Clothes plc
  Co-operatives
  Co-operatives
  Tourism and Leisure (Report)
  Tourism and Leisure (Report)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Inspectors
  Fishing Inspectors
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishing Vessels
  Whirling Disease
  Whirling Disease
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Pigs
  Pigs
EMPLOYMENT
  Skillcentre Instructors
  Skillcentre Instructors
  Preferred Suppliers Schemes
  Preferred Suppliers Schemes
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Public Statutory Bodies (Worker Representatives)
  Public Statutory Bodies (Worker Representatives)
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Youth Training Schemes
  Youth Training Schemes
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Unemployed People
  Unemployed People
  ILO Convention No. 26
  ILO Convention No. 26
  Young People's Wages
  Young People's Wages
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Statutory Instruments (Procedure)
  Statutory Instruments (Procedure)
ENVIRONMENT
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  Thamesmead
  Thamesmead
  River Mersey
  River Mersey
  Housing Condition Survey
  Housing Condition Survey
  Green Belt
  Green Belt
  Gloucester Place Fire (Inquest Report)
  Gloucester Place Fire (Inquest Report)
  Onshore Oil Exploration
  Onshore Oil Exploration
  Salford
  Salford
  Block Grant
  Block Grant
  "Local Authority Housing Repairs and Maintenance Needs"
  "Local Authority Housing Repairs and Maintenance Needs"
  Baby Seal Products
  Baby Seal Products
  Planning Permission
  Planning Permission
  System-built Housing
  System-built Housing
  Anglian Water Authority
  Anglian Water Authority
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Housing (Manchester)
  Housing (Manchester)
  LECA Houses
  LECA Houses
  Local Authority Services
  Local Authority Services
  Houses (Improvement for Sale Schemes)
  Houses (Improvement for Sale Schemes)
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Foreign Policy Statements
  Foreign Policy Statements
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH
  North Korea
  North Korea
  Ugandan Asians
  Ugandan Asians
  Antarctic (Conservation Areas)
  Antarctic (Conservation Areas)
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  PLO (Jordan)
  PLO (Jordan)
  Chile
  Chile
  Baby Seal Products
  Baby Seal Products
SCOTLAND
  Legal Services
  Legal Services
  Glasgow Housing
  Glasgow Housing
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Assisted Place Schemes
  Assisted Place Schemes
  NHS
  NHS
  Skoal Bandit
  Skoal Bandit
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Gaelic Language
  Gaelic Language
  Standard Grade Examination
  Standard Grade Examination
  New Towns (Housing)
  New Towns (Housing)
  Electronics Industry
  Electronics Industry
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Westminster Hospital
  Westminster Hospital
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Convalescent Facilities
  Convalescent Facilities
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Earnings Limit
  Earnings Limit
  Departmental Staff (Newcastle)
  Departmental Staff (Newcastle)
  Computer Facilities (Data Privacy)
  Computer Facilities (Data Privacy)
  Local Offices (Computers)
  Local Offices (Computers)
  Local Office Project
  Local Office Project
  Private Patients (Charges)
  Private Patients (Charges)
  Health Authorities (Uncollected Income)
  Health Authorities (Uncollected Income)
  Harefield Hospital Heart Transplant Fund
  Harefield Hospital Heart Transplant Fund
  Opticians
  Opticians
  Chrysoidine Dye
  Chrysoidine Dye
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Dietary Diseases
  Dietary Diseases
  Ressetlement Units
  Ressetlement Units
  Health Service Commissioner (Report)
  Health Service Commissioner (Report)
  Pay Awards
  Pay Awards
  Family Doctors (Services)
  Family Doctors (Services)
  Hospital Services (Privatisation)
  Hospital Services (Privatisation)
  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Occupational Deafness Benefit
  Occupational Deafness Benefit
  Civil Servants (Ministerial Briefings)
  Civil Servants (Ministerial Briefings)
  Health Authorities (Property Sales)
  Health Authorities (Property Sales)
  Central Bridging Fund
  Central Bridging Fund
  Schizophrenic Patients
  Schizophrenic Patients
  Drug (Research Guidelines)
  Drug (Research Guidelines)
  Social Work (Emergency Cover)
  Social Work (Emergency Cover)
  Gas Cookers
  Gas Cookers
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Support Benefit
  Support Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Chiropody
  Chiropody
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Donors
  Kidney Donors
THE ARTS
  Exhibitions (Insurance)
  Exhibitions (Insurance)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Private Security Companies (Contracts)
  Private Security Companies (Contracts)
  Business Appointments
  Business Appointments
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Orange Marches
  Orange Marches
  Down Royal Racecourse
  Down Royal Racecourse
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Rates
  Rates
  Capital Goods Exports
  Capital Goods Exports
  Infrastructure
  Infrastructure
  Tax Allowance
  Tax Allowance
  Personal Allowance
  Personal Allowance
  Sterling Divergence
  Sterling Divergence
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Deeds of Covenant
  Deeds of Covenant
  Nationalised Industries (Annual Reports)
  Nationalised Industries (Annual Reports)
  European Monetary System
  European Monetary System
  Early-leavers Entitlements
  Early-leavers Entitlements
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Tax Files
  Tax Files
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  North Sea Oil Revenue
  North Sea Oil Revenue
TRANSPORT
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Rail Engineering Works (Swindon)
  Rail Engineering Works (Swindon)
  Severn Crossing
  Severn Crossing
  St. Pancras-Sheffield Line
  St. Pancras-Sheffield Line
  Roads (East Dorset)
  Roads (East Dorset)
  Transport Bill
  Transport Bill
  M1 Repairs
  M1 Repairs
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Basildon (Signposting)
  Basildon (Signposting)
  Bus Services (Thurrock)
  Bus Services (Thurrock)
  Roads (Maintenance)
  Roads (Maintenance)
  Tyne and Wear Metro
  Tyne and Wear Metro
  Blackwater Valley Route
  Blackwater Valley Route
  Channel Tunnel (Rail Links)
  Channel Tunnel (Rail Links)
  British Rail (Purchasing Policy)
  British Rail (Purchasing Policy)
  British Airports Authority (Stansted Airport)
  British Airports Authority (Stansted Airport)
  European Road Safety Year
  European Road Safety Year
  Rail Engineering Industry
  Rail Engineering Industry
  European Community (Cabotage)
  European Community (Cabotage)
  Rail Electrification (North Wales)
  Rail Electrification (North Wales)
  British Rail (Investment)
  British Rail (Investment)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Operator's Licences)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Operator's Licences)
  Trinity House (Overseas Work)
  Trinity House (Overseas Work)
  Unlicensed Vehicles (Bromley)
  Unlicensed Vehicles (Bromley)
  Driving Test
  Driving Test
  Motorways (Surfaces)
  Motorways (Surfaces)
  M3 (Extension)
  M3 (Extension)
  Air Travel Reserve Fund
  Air Travel Reserve Fund
  Vehicles (Roadworthiness)
  Vehicles (Roadworthiness)
  Marques
  Marques
  Coach Drivers
  Coach Drivers
  Civil Actions
  Civil Actions
  London (Traffic Control)
  London (Traffic Control)
  Coastguard
  Coastguard
  Lorry Bans
  Lorry Bans

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

Limb and Appliance Centres: McColl Report
Baroness Lockwood: 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 when they expect the McColl Report on the review of the National Health Service limb and appliance centres to be available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I understand that the working party expects to submit its report later this summer.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for that rather brief and unreassuring reply. Can she indicate why there has been a delay in issuing the report, which I understand was to have been available in May? Is she aware that there is considerable disquiet in the artificial limb and appliance industry about the delay and about the possible effects of this report on the viability of the industry? Can she assure me that every effort will be made to speed up the publication of the report and to ensure that there will be adequate time to discuss possible recommendations for change with both the industry and the patient services?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the working party has taken evidence from a wide range of interests. It has received more than 1,000 pieces of written evidence from voluntary, professional and other organisations concerned with the service, and also from users, individual doctors, therapists and manufacturers. A number of these have also given oral evidence. The amount of consultation that has gone on is one of the reasons the report has taken time, but we will consider whether further consultations are necessary when we have received the report.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, who has had close personal experience with severe disability, whether, when the report comes out, she will do her very best to persuade her colleagues to be helpful and sympathetic to physically disabled people who need help in terms of appliances and other equipment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, I am looking forward to visiting Roehampton in the near future and I shall certainly take on board her remarks.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that when the review report is being considered, the emphasis will be not so much on short-term economies and commercial concerns but rather on the long-term interests of both the patients and the industry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that the members of the working party are already aware of those facts, but I shall see to it that they hear the words of the noble Baroness.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, even before the noble Baroness visits Roehampton, does she accept that over many years the limb and appliance centres have done a very remarkable job for disabled and handicapped people, especially ex-Servicemen? Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness two brief questions. First, can she give an assurance that the working party's report will be published? Secondly, can she give a further assurance that if the working party recommends that the work of these centres should be allocated to health authorities, the money will be there to enable the work to be effectively carried through?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, we will consider the question of publication when we have received the report. In answer to his second question, I am unable to comment until the report has been received.

Drug Traffickers' Profits: Legislation Proposals
2.41 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 whether, following the speech by the Lord Chief Justice on 9th July, they will indicate when they propose to introduce legislation to deal with the illicit profits made by convicted drug traffickers.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, our proposals are at an advanced stage of preparation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes that there will be an opportunity for legislation in the next Session.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that most of us are most eager to see this legislation come before Parliament? Is she aware that the statement made by the Lord Chief Justice at a judges' dinner represents the overwhelming view of public opinion in this country that one must make now a determined attack upon those responsible for making fortunes out of this trade? Secondly, may I ask whether the legislation will cover the Channel Islands as well as the situation in Great Britain, given the fact of an increasing number of allegations that financial institutions in the Channel Islands are being used in the course of this traffic?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, we would indeed agree that drug traffickers bring untold misery into society. I think that everyone in your Lordships' House will agree that it is intolerable that even after conviction they should enjoy the proceeds of their crimes. Therefore I am sure your Lordships will welcome the fact that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister only last Monday indicated the Government's intention to introduce a law in the next Session of Parliament to strip traffickers of their profits from the sale of these drugs. In regard to the second of the supplementary questions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, concerning the Channel Islands, this matter has been the subject of discussion with representatives of Jersey and Guernsey. The Home Affairs Committee have been looking into this matter and we look forward to learning their findings.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the proposed legislation will receive the strong and unanimous support of this side of the House? Can she give an indication of whether it will be in the early, the middle or the later part of the coming Session that we can look forward to this?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much we welcome the support that the proposed legislation has had from all Benches in your Lordships' House. I am afraid that I am no oracle and cannot give an indication of at what stage the legislation will be coming forward.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the new legislation will make some attempt to follow through the profits, however they may have been disposed of and however difficult it may be to do so?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Viscount means by "follow through the profits". However, I assure him that we regard provision for freezing assets at or just before the time of arrest as essential to the effectiveness of the new confiscation powers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that these people are apt, when threatened with prosecution, to transfer some of their ill-gotten gains to their immediate families in the hope that they may share the proceeds with them when they are released? Will my noble friend make sure that the legislation will deal not only with property in the hands of the convicted man but also of his known relations?
Baroness Cox: Indeed, my Lords, I believe that the people working on the proposals are aware of the fact that that is a very real problem, and cognizance will be taken of it.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was one of the first people in favour of televising this House, and all that I received was contempt and laughter, and such like? I am very pleased to see that noble Lords are in favour of it now. Thank you very much.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that contribution.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as the drug problem is a world-wide problem, can the Minister say which other countries already have this proposed legislation?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I understand that a few countries, most notably the United States, already have legislation in this respect. Many more are actively considering its introduction. I may also point out that that trend is being encouraged by extensive discussion of confiscation issues which has taken place in the United Nations and in the Pompidou group.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, although we do not normally like making legislation restrospective, is there any chance of doing so in this case?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on that suggestion, but I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

St. Thomas' Hospital: Future
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: 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 make a statement on the future of St. Thomas' Hospital, the South-Western Hospital and the psychiatric unit at Tooting Bec, all of which are the responsibility of the West Lambeth Health Authority.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is for West Lambeth Health Authority to devise a strategy for the future of these hospitals within resource assumptions set by South-East Thames Regional Health Authority.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister therefore confirm that the future of St. Thomas' Hospital is in the balance because of financial restraints? Does that situation not cause her great concern? Also, bearing in mind the recent decision by the Minister of Health to close the cardiac surgery unit at Westminster Hospital, the plans to withdraw 63 beds at Guy's, and now the uncertainty about the future of St. Thomas' Hospital, is not the promise that the National Health Service is safe in the hands of the Government beginning to look just a little bit tattered?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I totally reject the noble Lord's final remark. With regard to St. Thomas' Hospital maintaining its role as a major international medical centre, the answer is that, yes, it will. The strategy of the West Lambeth Health Authority is likely to involve rationalisation of local services and their concentration on St. Thomas' Hospital.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not the noble Baroness a little surprised by the Question put to her, because

987
does not the situation at hospitals depend to some extent on the implementation of the findings of the Resources Allocation Working Party—RAWP—and was it not at a time when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was Secretary of State for Health that the proposals of that working party were adopted? Part at least of the shortfall in resources for certain hospitals in that neighbourhood come from the perfectly understandable conclusion of the previous Government that resources should be moved out of London to the regions.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have several answers that I could give the noble Lord, Lord Annan. The point is that West Lambeth Health Authority, like every other district health authority in the country, has a statutory obligation to stay within its cash limit. We believe that the current problems in that particular authority are a matter for managerial action by South-East Thames Regional Health Authority. West Lambeth Health Authority's members agreed last Friday to produce a satisfactory short-term programme for 1985–86. That is a very encouraging piece of information.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that there is considerable concern among staff at St. Thomas' Hospital about the future of that famous hospital? May we take it that her Answer is of a reassuring nature and that it is possible to say now that the future of that great hospital need not cause the medical staff there the concern they are currently feeling?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thought that I had already replied to that question when I said that St. Thomas' will continue to be a major national hospital.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that there is a good deal of concern felt about many centres of excellence? Westminster Hospital is one such case, and there are many others. While we all agree that those hospitals must be administered regionally, as they are, they also have a national importance. Many of them are accessible and available to people living beyond the boundaries of the regions concerned. Is there not a case therefore for the Government to produce a paper—a White Paper, possibly—giving a national strategy in relation to those important centres of excellence—not all hospitals—and will she discuss that suggestion with her right honourable friend?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will agree that the subject of other hospitals is a little wide of today's Question, but I will certainly see that his suggestion is passed on to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that those of us who are heavily committed to the £1 million appeal for moving the Phipps respiratory unit from the South-Western Hospital to St. Thomas' Hospital are deeply worried, because if this Question holds any water we are bound to feel that we are working on a false prospectus?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the regional health authority has agreed to provide some capital for the move of the Phipps unit to St. Thomas' Hospital. Provided the district health authority produces a proper strategic plan and the patients' association is able to meet its fund-raising target, there is reason to be optimistic about the proposed move.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Minister aware that on 30th October last year, at a meeting in the other place between her right honourable friend the Minister of Health and representatives from those concerned in the region of St. Thomas' Hospital and the district, the Minister said there was no likelihood of any of the three teaching hospitals in that area being closed? He went on to say that the worst thing that could happen would be that those hospitals should be destroyed by attrition. Is the Minister aware that the staff of St. Thomas' Hospital—of which I am an exmember—will be reassured by what she said, but only up to a point? St. Thomas' Hospital is facing an acute incompatibility. It is being required by the region, on the one hand, to take over—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Richardson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that St. Thomas' Hospital is being asked to take over many commitments while at the same time having its budget reduced to the extent of approximately £1 million a year? Finally—
Noble Lords: No; order!
Noble Lords: Carry on, carry on.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, finally, is the Minister of the opinion that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, put an extremely important question when he asked whether these hospitals should be treated nationally rather than as local problems?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it really is not for me to answer this question of whether or not the big hospitals should be treated nationally. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I shall certainly pass on the remarks made on that score.
One of the reasons that this Question has been asked today is the worry about St. Thomas' Hospital, much more than about the other two hospitals which come into that area. The South-East Thames Regional Health Authority's policy is to move resources in line with population movement in recent years. Districts like Medway have been relatively deprived of local health services for many years and need additional revenue for improvements. West Lambeth has been overprovided for—with acute beds in particular—and the pattern of services must change there to meet today's needs. On the other hand, St. Thomas' Hospital, as I have already said, is safe.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not the case that some special arrangements were agreed for the teaching hospitals within the RAWP formula, and is it not important that these should be honoured?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry, but I could not hear the noble Lord.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. I simply asked whether it is not the case that some special arrangements were made for the teaching hospitals within the RAWP formula, and whether it is not of the greatest importance that these should be honoured.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, these will be honoured.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take very fair note of the point made by her noble friend Lady Lane-Fox and understand that I am concerned with the three hospitals, not just with St. Thomas' Hospital? Will she also accept that the RAWP formula (which was introduced when I was Secretary of State), with the provisions made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has happily also been totally accepted by the present Government? Does the noble Baroness not agree that there is no difference between the previous Government and the present Government except that at present it is very difficult to apply the RAWP formula when, in real terms, the rate of growth is so small?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. West Lambeth Health Authority, like other London districts, is still over-provided with acute beds to meet the need of its declining population, while its priority services need considerable improvements. Large amounts of revenue can be released by rationalising acute services and hospital sites within the district health authority.
Lord Annan: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one further question? The findings of the Resources Allocation Working Party were based on mortality rates—that is, the resources for hospitals were judged on the number of cadavers wheeled from the wards to the mortuary, or the number of deaths recorded in that area. Does the noble Baroness not agree that it would be a much more significant statistic if the morbidity rates were taken?—that is, we should take the number of patients who enter a ward in a hospital in a morbid condition and are discharged having been cured or, at any rate, with their morbidity alleviated. That would surely be a more significant statistic on which to base the resources allocated to a hospital than is the number of deaths recorded in the hospital.
Lord Ennals: Both, my Lords.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is a general one of great interest.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask a very quick question arising from what the noble Baroness said? What about the thousands and millions of tourists pouring into central London and the additional load which arises on the casualty departments of both St. Thomas' and Westminster hospitals?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that question is a little wide of the original Question, but I thank the noble Baroness for asking it.

English Housing Condition Survey
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ezra: 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 propose altering the basis of the 1986 English housing condition survey, and, if so, whether this will invalidate comparison with the 1981 survey.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that laconic reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the widespread concern about the condition of housing in this country which, based on the 1981 survey, indicated that one in four houses were in urgent need of repair? May I also ask the noble Lord for his confirmation that he agrees that regular, detailed and comparable information should be provided on this subject?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I am well aware of what the 1981 English housing condition survey revealed, and this is all very much part of the infrastructure debate which is going on within the confines of Neddy at the moment. As regards comparability between the 1981 and 1986 surveys, I totally agree with the noble Lord.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware of his Government's own Green Paper on this subject, published on 9th May, which encourages the repair and improvement of housing? Is he further aware that in that Green Paper there are proposals for redefining "repair" so that "disrepair" means, "dangerous structural disrepair", and "damp" is defined as, "dampness so pervasive as to be a threat to the health of the occupant"? Does this not mean a great lowering of standards? Perhaps the Minister can tell the House how many houses now classified as unfit would, under the new proposals, be reclassified as fit.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes of course I am aware of the Green Paper and the standards of fitness paragraph contained in it. But since the minimum housing standard dates back to 1968 and the last minimum standard in England and Wales was set in 1957 it is small wonder that consideration of it should be required from time to time. As the noble Baroness well knows, a Green Paper is a consultative document. The document has gone out to over 500 interested organisations and there are no plans at the moment—in fact it would be impossible—to change the fitness standard before the 1986 English housing condition survey got underway.
Lord Davies of Leek: Is the noble Lord aware of the urgency in the demand to improve the infrastructure in regard to modern housing? Sewerage and drainage

991
systems are of paramount importance and many now need attention. Some of them are more than a century old. While there is currently unemployment, this is a chance to provide work for people, and some jobs could be done more cheaply now than if we wait until the situation grows worse.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is a point of view which is gaining very wide currency. I have already referred to the infrastructure debate which is going on within the confines of Neddy. However, if such action has to be taken it has to be based on modern, up-to-date scientific sureveys.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to come back on this matter but the noble Lord has still not answered the point that these redefinitions were proposed and put down in the Government's own Green Paper. Is the noble Lord saying that there is no redefinition intended; or if there is redefinition intended, is he also then prepared to agree that this will lower the standards considerably and mean that there will be more and more housing in a lamentably poorer condition even than there is at the present time, which is making it as low as it can be?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I pointed out when the noble Baroness asked her first supplementary question, we are consulting on redefinition of the minimum housing standard, but we do not intend that this should be lower or would change the figures substantially. We do not know of course what will be in the new definition until we have consulted upon it.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, after the Minister has obtained the new figures and the redefinition, will the Government be considering putting any more financial resources into overcoming the problem, which is of paramount importance now, without having any further reports?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, spending on housing is one of the very important matters which are considered every year in the Public Expenditure Review, and it would be absolutely impossible for me to pre-empt what will be in the next or any future one.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the relief of famine in Ethiopia.

Hastings Pier Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Televising the Proceedings of the House
3.4 p.m.
Lord Soames Lord Soames rose to move, That this House takes note of the First Report by the Select Committee
992
[H.L. 213] and approves the continuation of the televising of the proceedings of the House on the basis of the current experiment until such time as the House takes a decision on whether or not to permit the permanent televising of its proceedings.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The issue before your Lordships' House, between the Motion on the one hand and the amendment on the other, covers, as it were, a limited front of a major problem, but the result will be extremely important, for reasons that I wish to put to your Lordships.
First, there is a question of what this debate is not about. It is not about the long-term decision as to whether or not this House will continue to be televised. The House will clearly wish to debate this question and clearly will debate it in the next Session, when your Lordships will have received the considered report from the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House, when the committee will give its mature consideration to the results of the experiment and will put its views before the House. So I do not think it would be right today to take up the time of the House and to use this debate to deploy the arguments which in my view should wait until that definitive debate.
What we are considering today is whether, given the circumstances in which we are now placed, your Lordships would wish to agree to the televising of the House continuing on the present basis for the few months after mid-October, when the House returns, until the House comes to consider the definitive report of the Select Committee—we are talking in terms of months, though obviously I cannot say how many—or, on the other hand, if the amendment were to be passed, whether televising should be brought to an end now (for that is what the amendment calls for), so that when we return in October there will be no televising in the House. Presumably everything will be removed from the House and there will be, as it were, a hiatus, which may or may not be filled after the definitive debate.
What are the arguments in favour of letting the present arrangements continue? The first point that I should like to put to your Lordships came out in the Select Committee's interim report: the fact that both the BBC and ITV have requested that the experiment be allowed to continue. I recommend that those of your Lordships who have not already done so should read the letters that have been written to the committee by those two organisations, because they show that they believe that their audiences wish it to continue, and that their audiences appreciate the programmes that have resulted from such televising. The listening figures are available. They show that the audiences have reached many millions. Further than that I should not wish to go in this debate.
At the other end of the scale is my second reason, which is that I do not think that many of your Lordships feel that either our debates or noble Lords individually have been affected for the worse because of the presence of cameras in your Lordships' House. I think that even the lighting, which I remember caused much anxiety in the debate before the matter was settled, has come to be accepted as tolerable by your Lordships.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, no!
Lord Soames: Well, generally speaking, my Lords. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, who has always been hostile to this idea, but generally speaking I should say that that was true.
Then there is the fact that much evidence would seem to support the greater respect and repute of your Lordships' House in the country and an improved understanding among the people of the part that the House plays in our national life. I repeat that I should not think it right to pursue this most powerful argument until we come to the definitive debate. Suffice it to say today in general terms that I believe that the great majority of your Lordships consider the experiment to have been successful in those terms. Indeed, I believe that there are more of your Lordships who might have been doubtful in the beginning about the wisdom of televising your Lordships' House but who have now come to accept it as a good thing as opposed to the other way round—those of your Lordships who thought it was a good thing but who have come to doubt it as a result of the experiment.
The televising of the House has gained a certain momentum in the country. I hope that your Lordships will feel that the time to bring it to an end, if it comes to that, would be after the Select Committee has presented its definitive report and the House has considered it and taken its decision. But there must be, to say the least, a good possibility that when that time comes the House will decide that televising should be continued for a notably longer time, in which case what a pity it would be to throw away all that has been gained in the past few months.
I think that the timetable was made by your Lordships for what seemed right at the time—an experiment for six months. We see now that it has been, in the minds of many of your Lordships, a success; but now is not the time to decide definitively what is to happen. It would be a pity to lose these large audiences which have been built up now—those who are taking an interest in the business of your Lordships' House—and to have to create them again, beginning from scratch, perhaps in a few months' time. I hope that your Lordships will decide to support this Motion, which I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the First Report by the Select Committee [H.L. 213] and approves the continuation of the televising of the proceedings of the House on the basis of the current experiment until such time as the House takes a decision on whether or not to permit the permanent televising of its proceedings.—(Lord Soames.)
3.13 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("and") and insert ("requests the Select Committee to use their best endeavours to produce a full and considered report on the television experiment, together with recommendations concerning the future of televising the proceedings of the House on a permanent basis, before the Christmas Recess.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order
994
Paper. My noble friend Lord Soames has, as one would expect, moved the Motion in fair and lucid terms and I am sure that his words will be carefully weighed by your Lordships, whatever your present opinions may be.
I think that it is fair that I should remind your Lordships that on 27th November last year this House agreed to an experiment which was to be of six months' duration. In June, a month ago, the broadcasters asked that the experiment should continue. Today, 22nd July, six months almost to the day from the start of the experiment, it is suggested to your Lordships that it should continue and that it should continue until, first, the Select Committee has reported—and it is indicated to us in the report of the committee that the final report will not be available until after the Christmas Recess—and that meanwhile the experiment should continue until your Lordships are ready to make a final decision.
It is not, I think, unreasonable to comment that six months will have turned quite easily into 12 before that decision is made and that we shall at least have given the appearance of sliding smoothly from the temporary towards the permanent. This quite modest amendment says that we have had the experiment for which your Lordships asked, that we should now have a report and that we should have it, if at all possible, before Christmas.
I think this debate is a welcome opportunity to reflect upon what has happened during the period of the experiment. I should find it not all that ease to go along with my noble friend Lord Soames when he says that we should simply confine ourselves to the issue of whether the experiment goes on. I think that we should reflect upon the experience that we have had during the currency of it. It may be that some of your Lordships' opinions will even be helpful to the Select Committee when it comes to consider the matter.
For my part I must say that I have found the interest in your Lordships' proceedings greater than I had expected. I was surprised also that the broadcasts, particularly as the experiment went on, were as frequent as they were—much more so than I had expected. I also concede that the lights, though hideous in themselves, have been less intrusive than I had anticipated. I would make the same comment about the cameras, which I think have been admirably handled by those responsible.
However, the experiment has not removed or diminished other anxieties, particularly those which concern the question of editing. It has not removed either the suspicion that your Lordships' House is being used as a key to the door of another place; nor has it removed my own fear of the consequences for Parliament if it permits the permanent intrusion of this very strong and powerful medium.
If I may remind your Lordships, my noble friend Lord Soames in moving his Motion on 8th December 1983 conceded immediately the importance of editing. He said (at col. 1190 of Hansard):
"I am in no doubt that provided the business of the House that is transmitted is carefully selected and well edited, under strict ground rules designed to facilitate the imparting of information rat her than the knocking or mocking … the televising of this Chamber must do more good than harm".
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, went rather further than that, and in doing so certainly had my agreement in what I thought was a very able speech in November of last year. He concerned himself with the need for parliamentary control and the reluctance of the broadcasters to concede it. He said:
"I am convinced that your Lordships should continue to have a substantial, indeed, a decisive, voice in the way in which the cameras are used and the way in which the proceedings are edited and transmitted.
"Some kind of parliamentary television unit for this purpose would, according to the initial memorandum submitted by the BBC and set out in the committee's report, 'raise grave questions of editorial responsibility and freedom to report'".
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, also went on to say later in the same column:
"I have no doubt that in the course of the six months' experiment there will be the most impeccable exercise of editorial responsibility by the broadcasting authorities. I am not entirely convinced that this would necessarily be any guarantee for a permanent arrangement".
I share those anxieties to the full.
Of course, I admit that it is easy to see bias even where there is none. But the difficulty which I think broadcasters will always face in an attempt to be fair in a Chamber such as this, is that accusation is always, or almost always, short, sharp and exciting, whereas explanation is often—and your Lordships have frequent experience of this—very much the reverse.
I come to my next point, the fear that your Lordships' House is being used as the key to the House of Commons, for it is there, rather than here, that events which constitute good material for television occur. Concern as to whether the screening of those events will be beneficial, either for Parliament or for the nation, is in my view unlikely to be uppermost in the minds of broadcasters. They will in my opinion be more concerned to make immediate impact. It will be easy for them to overlook, to brush aside, interests of an institution such as Parliament, easy to prefer the dramatic to the truthful, the excitement of the moment to matters of more enduring worth. It is tempting indeed to use, and to be used by, men of violence and to give prominence and therefore support to those who look elsewhere than to Parliament or the courts for means of resolving differences.
By coincidence the Economist has a very interesting article on the subject this week. I quote:
"In their competition for viewers media-managers often forget that they have a power which they should restrain".
I have no wish to detain your Lordships for much longer. However, perhaps I may be permitted to finish with the comment that there is no need in the modern world to remind your Lordships of the dangers to human liberty which exist all over the world, but perhaps it is as well to remember the need to uphold and protect those institutions which have their foundations in that liberty.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after ("and") and insert ("requests the Select Committee to use their best endeavours to produce a full and considered report on the television experiment, together with recommendations concerning the future of televising the proceedings of the House on a permanent basis, before the Christmas Recess.").—(Lord Peyton of Yeovil.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in my view the advice given to noble Lords by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, was extremely wise: that we really should direct our attention to the two choices, one choice being that offered to your Lordships' House in the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and the other choice being that contained in the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Therefore, I do not think that this is the occasion on which we should be debating the general issues which we have debated at length on many occasions in the past.
To be helpful to noble Lords in assessing the extent to which they will wish to heed the advice I shall presently give them on that choice, it may be fair if I make my position on the general issue crystal clear. I have always been in favour of the televising of Parliament, and the limited experiment we have had so far has reinforced me in that view. I take the view that television is now the public's principal source of information—information on everything; news, current affairs, foreign affairs, sport, politics and the weather. It is not the press; it is television. I think for Parliament to turn its back on the principal source of information would be very unwise indeed. I take the view that the arguments against it are on the whole the same arguments that were advanced year after year, years ago, against allowing the press to come into Parliament.
Let us go to these choices. First, I should like, as did the noble Lord, Lord Soames, to underline what I regard as the possible benefits which could accrue from the extension of this experiment under the terms of the noble Lord's Motion. First, I think it is well established that any damage done to the fabric of this very beautiful building is not done by the presence of the lights or the wiring; it is done by
putting them up and taking them down. We are advised that that is the only source of possible damage to our roof and to the rest of the fabric of the building.
As the noble Lord, Lord Soames, wisely said, if, at a later stage, your Lordships' House is to take the view that we should continue with televising, it would seem to me to have been very wasteful indeed to have taken down all the apparatus and then to have to put it back again. It would be costly and also it would cause some damage to the fabric of the building. Therefore, I think it is better to leave the equipment here and, as it is left here, to allow it to be used within the terms of the Motion.
The second benefit of extending the experiment is that it would allow time for further experiment and possibly further improvements in the way in which it has been done. From the experiment already, the broadcasters, the BBC and ITV, have already become aware of the reservations that certain noble Lords have and they have already made some attempts to meet those reservations and to meet objections. An additional period would allow them time to make further attempts with regard to, for example, the lighting.
The Select Committee, as will no doubt be apparent when we, in the fullness of time, produce our full report, have had the benefit of seeing pictures

997
produced with much less lighting, with more sensitive cameras. We have been very impressed with that. We have also had the opportunity of discussing the possibility of removing the fixtures—which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, described as hideous. I do not quarrel with him. However, I think the intensity of the lighting is advantageous to some of us. Some of us find it difficult when the lighting goes down and we should quite like the lighting to stay up even when the House is not being televised. However, I agree that the lights are unsightly and it may well be that in the further period of the experiment the broadcasters will be able to find more acceptable ways of increasing—perhaps doing so to a lesser extent—the level of lighting in your Lordships' Chamber.
In addition, new technical advances are being made almost daily. We have had the opportunity of seeing new remote-control cameras and cameras of greater sensitivity, the use of which requires a less intense level of lighting. The further experiment will possibly allow the use of that. In addition, continuation of the experiment will allow further opportunities for the broadcasters, both BBC and ITV, to experiment in the use they make of the feed taken of our proceedings. Much has been done during the period of the experiment. It started with little pieces of broadcasts of actual debates, then small snippets in the news. Then we had the truly excellent reports of your Lordships' proceedings on Channel 4, which I think were very acceptable indeed. I think there are many opportunities for imaginative uses of the feed which have not yet been experimented with and which perhaps could be used by the broadcasters during this additional period, if we have one.
I would say this, my Lords. I believe that the experiment we embarked upon some months ago has, in part, already been successful. The experiment was not only to decide whether we liked it or whether we found it tolerable. It was also to find out whether the public were interested in it. It has always seemed to me that it would be pointless for us to go to the trouble of having our proceedings recorded on television if, then, no one watched it. It would be like composing music—maybe very good music—that no one ever hears. I believe that that part of the experiment has been conducted. We also wanted to know, in part, in relation to the experiment, whether the broadcasters themselves found it technically possible to broadcast the proceedings of your Lordships' Chamber in a manner that was acceptable to noble Lords. They have had that experiment. They have found it technically possible and also, I believe, desirable.
What have we discovered by the experiment so far? We have discovered, first of all, that programmes of your Lordships' House are popular. The viewing figures, which have been published recently and which will no doubt be published in great detail in due course in the Select Committee report, show that, without doubt, a very large number of viewers have actually chosen to watch programmes about your Lordships' House. They have not been compelled to do so because the programmes are on every channel. They have sought them out and have positively watched them. Secondly, there is substantial evidence already that the general public is now better informed of the
998
nature of your Lordships' House and the manner in which it conducts its proceedings. Thirdly, I do not think that there is a shadow of doubt—
A noble Lord having been taken ill:
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 3.32 until 3.41 p.m.]

Ethiopia: Famine Relief
3.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the relief of the Ethiopian famine.
"I visited Ethiopia from 16th to 19th July to assess the current famine situation and the need for further relief there. I revisited the feeding centres at Korem, which I saw last November, spent half a day at Assab port, went on an airdrop operation in an RAF Hercules, and had discussions with Ethiopian Ministers, the United Nations co-ordinator, Mr. Kurt Jansson, the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner, and representatives of international and voluntary agencies.
"The international relief effort, in which both the British Government and people have played an important part, has alleviated much of the worst suffering which we saw on our television screens in the latter part of 1984. Rain is now falling in many parts of Ethiopia, some crops have been planted and livestock is beginning to recover.
"However, there are still large areas, notably Wollo and parts of Tigre and Eritrea, where the rains have been only intermittent or have yet to come at all. It will be several weeks before any reliable assessment of the probable 1985 harvest can be made. It will be several months before that harvest can be gathered. All to whom I spoke in Ethiopia agreed that even with the most favourable rains this year's harvest will be well below that of a normal year. It is essential, therefore, that the relief efforts are maintained into 1986.
"What are the immediate priorities? The United Nations co-ordinator estimates that with current stocks in Ethiopia and firm pledges of further deliveries, the overall food supply should be adequate for the rest of this year. At Assab I saw the considerable flow of European Community food aid into Ethiopia—three ships were unloading food grain from the Community. Effective use is being made of the dumper trucks, grain conveyors and tarpaulins we have provided—we shall be sending in

999
the next few days a further supply of tarpaulins for use at Massawa and on relief trucks.
"The overriding priority now is to improve food distribution. There are still not enough trucks available. The situation should soon improve significantly with the arrival of trucks pledged earlier. The United Nations co-ordinator's assessment is that perhaps another 400 long-haul and short-haul trucks will still be required. It is of course essential that the Ethiopian Government make available all the trucks that they can.
"As the House is aware, our major contribution to food distribution in Ethiopia has been the provision since 3rd November last year of two RAF Hercules aircraft and their accompanying detachment, including a team from the Royal Corps of Transport. This operation has now airlifted well over 12,600 tonnes of grain and dropped a further 7,000 tonnes to places inaccessible by any other means of transport. It is an operation which, as I have seen for myself, calls for the highest professional skills and cool courage. It is admired by everyone in Ethiopia.
"As I told the House last Monday, one of the purposes of my visit to Ethiopia was to judge whether we should maintain the decision I announced on 10th June to withdraw our aircraft by 30th September. We had expected then that by 30th September the ending of the rains and the buildup of trucks would enable food to be distributed more widely and efficiently by road. My visit has confirmed that this remains the most cost-effective way of moving large quantities of grain, but the buildup of road transport has gone more slowly than expected. Areas inaccessible by road will continue to depend on food brought from outside until their own harvest is in, as we all hope it will be, at the end of the year. The Hercules also provide a much valued flexibility.
"We have now been able to weigh up carefully the future of the Hercules operation, and to discuss it fully with the Ethiopian Government—who asked us to extend it—with the UN co-ordinator and with other relief agencies. We have concluded that the aircraft will continue to be needed until the end of the year. We are therefore conveying to the Ethiopian Government our offer to keep the two aircraft and accompanying detachment on relief operations until the latter part of December.
"Mr. Speaker, this new commitment, together with the further 10,000 tonnes of food aid which we shall send when the ports are ready to handle it, demonstrates the Government's continuing concern for the victims of the Ethiopian drought. Our contribution has been prompt—we helped the Save the Children Fund with its feeding centre in Korem early in 1983; generous—£70 million of emergency aid since 1982; and sustained. We shall continue to do all we can."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. We on these Benches very much welcome the decision to continue the Hercules
1000
service in Ethiopia. If I may say so, we had been very disturbed by the earlier decision to end the service in September. We are glad that the Government have decided to respond to the pressure of public opinion on this issue. In more general terms, I should like to express the hope that the Government will also respond to the public opinion which was roused by the Band Aid concert a few days ago and increase the aid programme so that we can more adequately respond to needs such as those illustrated particularly in Ethiopia at this time.
However, is it not the case that the RAF operation in Ethiopia, highly commendable though it is—and indeed vital in some remote areas because it is the only means of getting food to those areas—accounts for only a small part of the food distribution? Are not the voluntary agencies, which are doing such noble work in Ethiopia, wrestling praticularly not only with the problem of the shortage of lorries, to which the Statement refers (and we welcome what is being done in that respect), but also with the continuing problems of shortage of petrol, spare parts and maintenance mechanics? I wonder whether the noble Baroness heard my right honourable friend Mr. Neil Kinnock on the radio this morning speaking from Addis Ababa? He had just been speaking to a mechanic who was helping to repair lorries out there and he was pointing to the dearth of that type of skill. Is the noble Baroness able to give us any hope that that kind of skill will be mobilised and that young people will perhaps be sent out in an emergency operation in order to overcome that type of problem with which the voluntary agencies are so gallantly wrestling?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we too on these Benches should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this most important Statement which has been made in another place. Nobody would dispute that the Government, and indeed the country, have responded most generously and most efficiently to this emergency. We stress the word "emergency"; we always act in this way to an emergency. I am very glad to hear that the Government are considering extending their use of these aircraft for the very important aspect of the transport of grain in Ethiopia.
However, it would be useful if the noble Baroness could elucidate one or two matters. First, what kind of influence are we able to bring to bear upon the Ethiopian Government so that they match the type of effort which we and others are making in this country by supplying trucks for the movement of food and not for the movement of military personnel and armaments?
Secondly, it would be useful if the Government could also guide us on how they see the enormous funds which have been raised recently by voluntary efforts—and of course I mean particularly the Band Aid effort—dovetailing with the voluntary agencies. How do they see a useful and productive use of this enormous amount of money? Can they assure us that it will not be wasted by duplicating effort in certain areas, and that it can be used in the most sensible and productive manner possible?
Lastly, we on these Benches would like to have some view from the Government as to what lessons have been learnt so far from the Ethiopian disaster and our

1001
involvement in it. Have we been able to learn from our activities there, and from the activities of the voluntary agencies, something which will enable us to lay the ground plans for a long-term approach to famine in Africa?
Have we any further information, any further expertise, which will help us take the long-term view—which is not the emergency aid; which is not the food shipped out in a hurry—on the kind of influence we can bring to bear in Ethiopia (and indeed other countries where perhaps it is easier for us), so that these countries themselves can take steps to contribute to avoiding these kinds of disasters in the future?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for the welcome they have given to this Statement. I am sure that we are all glad that we have been able to extend the use of the Hercules aircraft and the detachment to look after them, because their value has already been shown in all the relief efforts.
The noble Lord and the noble Viscount asked me about the Government's response to the magnificent sum of money that has been raised by Band Aid. We recognise that this is a remarkable achievement and that every effort must be made to see that the money that has been raised will be well used. We believe that the Ethiopian authorities will co-operate fully over this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked me whether the voluntary organisations are still wrestling with these complicated problems of distribution of supplies. The two planes to which I have referred operate only in Ethiopia. We are paying for a separate airlift by charter plane in the Sudan. I can tell the noble Lord, on the question of providing more trucks, that we are considering providing more trucks for any British vehicles. However, most transport is in fact of non-British make and the UN co-ordinator has made a plea not to add to the multiplicity of vehicles, so we have agreed to provide some trailers. We have also provided an engineer to advise on the rehabilitation of the relief and rehabilitation commissioner's Land Rover fleet, for which we have provided spares. We have also provided 23 new Land Rovers and 28 trucks.
I was asked also what influence we could bring to bear on the Ethiopian Government. We have expressed our concern to the Ethiopian Government over the continued fighting in Eritrea and Tigre, and we have pointed out the benefits which an end to hostilities would bring to the people of those areas, and indeed to the economy as a whole. We have supported the efforts by the UN co-ordinator, Mr. Jansson, to arrange the safe passage for relief convoys.
Finally, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked what lessons have been learnt from all this. He has made some valuable points and raised some serious questions which are being addressed in the course of this disaster. The Statement addresses itself once again to an immediate situation. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has just returned from Ethiopia and from getting once again a first-hand view of the situation, but I think that the
1002
noble Viscount is quite right in the points he raises: that we need to learn from this lessons for the future. If he will forgive me, I shall not go into that this afternoon, because I think it is more properly a subject of debate. However, I note very much the point he has made, and I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Reay: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say what contributions have been made by Eastern-bloc countries toward the relief of famine in Ethiopia? Would she like to compare this with the contribution made by the United States of America?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my noble friend asks an important question. I have not the figures for the contribution made by the Eastern-bloc countries, but I can tell him that the major contributions have been made by the United States, the European Community, and the countries of the West, and relatively little has been provided by the Eastern-bloc countries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I pay tribute to the noble Baroness's personal involvement in the tragic situation in Ethiopia? Perhaps I may ask her two questions arising out of her Statement. First, is it not the case that the aid provided by this country, by the Government, to relieve famine in Africa is only aid within the already agreed aid budget, and therefore has been taken from aid which was destined for other hungry countries?
Secondly, the noble Baroness mentions the use of the Hercules aircraft in Ethiopia. Is it not the case that only half the cost of those aircraft is borne by the Ministry of Defence, and the rest has to come out of the Overseas Development Administration's budget?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, yes, it is true that half the costs of the aircraft are being borne by the Ministry of Defence—the costs amount to about £750,000 a month—and half is being borne by the Overseas Development Administration. The answer to his first question is that the money for the emergency aid has come from the contingency fund of the Overseas Development Administration. We regard this as a proper use of that money because clearly this is an emergency, and that is what this money is set aside for.
I can confirm that our total expenditure for drought relief in Africa in the financial year 1984–85 was £95 million. This is in addition to the £125 million of longer-term aid Britain plans to spend directly on the 20 African countries most seriously affected by drought.
Lord Walston: My Lords, the Statement that the noble Baroness has made mentions that there are not enough trucks. Does she agree that in addition to trucks there is a need for spare parts for trucks; that spare parts are of no use unless there are qualified and experienced mechanics to fit the spare parts; that in order to have such mechanics it is necessary that people should have some training and above all that they should be literate; and that for the trucks it is necessary that there should be roads along which they

1003
can run and places along the roads where they can get fuel? In other words, a whole complex of infrastructure, not only of transport but of education, is needed both for famine relief and for enabling these countries to develop their own agriculture and grow sufficient food so that these crises do not arise in the future.
Will she assure the House that, as a result of this crisis, Her Majesty's Government are aware that there is a need for a greater expenditure on a long-term basis on infrastructure, not only in Ethiopia but in many other countries affected and threatened by famine, and that steps will be taken to avoid the recurrence in the long term of this sort of thing by expenditure on infrastructure?
4 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said about the complications of distribution and the importance of having both trucks and spare parts, and people who are capable of repairing the trucks and keeping them in order. Indeed, the latest information available to us suggests that sufficient food is being shipped to Ethiopian ports and stocks are building up in the warehouses, but distribution problems persist. We and other donors are keen to ensure that the Ethiopian authorities continue to make more vehicles available for distribution purposes. As I indicated in an earlier answer, we are providing spare parts for trucks and have provided an engineer. But the point the noble Lord makes is important, and I recognise it.
The second point raised by the noble Lord is similar to one raised by his noble friend Lord Falkland. We are aware of the problems that this crisis has thrown up. There are long-term problems in Africa, and these are points which I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend. I recognise that in all parts of the House we are concerned about the future problems of drought and its causes and also about the other problems of Africa.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the people in this country are proud and excited about the aid that we have sent both in money and in other ways to help deal with the famine? But is she also aware that the one doubt as shown from all kinds of media is the lack of enthusiasm from the Ethiopian Government to make the best of the aid which is going there? Can my noble friend say whether that doubt, which is there and has been expressed, is well founded or ill founded? The only words my noble friend has used in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, were that we were hopeful that the Ethiopian Government would be 100 per cent. helpful, but there was rather a muted response to something which may injure the whole purpose of the exercise in which everyone else is trying to help.
Baroness Young: My Lords, everyone has been immensely impressed by the work of the Band Aid group and the unbelievable amounts of money that have been given so generously by so many people. Before the work of the Band Aid group it was a measure of the very real concern shown by the overwhelming majority of people in Britain that so
1004
much money had been raised voluntarily for the work of the voluntary organisations in this country to help towards famine relief in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. We all acknowledge this and what my noble friend has said.
On my noble friend's second point, we have to remember that all this is taking place in another country. We can only use our influence with the Government of that country to see that the food goes to the right people and is being properly distributed. What I can say is that there have been reports that too much food goes to the militia in Eritrea, but I confirm that a team comprising representatives of the United Nations Co-ordinator, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission is to investigate this. I can confirm to my noble friend what I said earlier: that we have expressed our concern about the continued fighting in Eritrea and Tigre, none of which helps the distribution of food or the indigenous population.

Televising the Proceedings of the House
4.5 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I may now conclude my earlier remarks, which were so unhappily interrupted, with three short sentences. First, I hope that all noble Lords will vote at the end of this debate believing that whatever decision they take is entirely without prejudice to the decision which the House will later take when it has had the full and final report of the Select Committee. Secondly, it seems to me entirely appropriate, consistent and sensible that those who were opposed to television before the experiment, and remain of that mind, should support the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. But with regard to the rest, particularly those who still remain uncertain, I would say that if we would allow the experiment to continue it may permit questions to be answered which are not yet answered and it will also assist us greatly in that later debate.
Finally, we have already done a great deal in the public mind by allowing this experiment. I believe your Lordships' House has become popular, people are more interested in it and are so much better informed about it. If we were now seen to halt this experiment prematurely, as I think the public would think, that would have a damaging effect on the way we appear to the viewing public.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I cannot believe that as a society and as a nation we have yet learned how to control, how to use beneficially, for the general good, this immensely powerful means of opinion and behaviour forming. Nothing in the last six months suggests to me otherwise, so far as our Parliament is concerned. The inherent danger in this power is its capacity to exaggerate, to exaggerate to the point of distortion, the faults and failings as well as the virtues of individuals and organisations. In political presentation, especially in extracts, it tends to amplify

1005
differences between us, when the crying need is for steady, unspectacular and maybe unnewsworthy discussion. I can understand the noble Lord saying that these wider factors should not be discussed on this Motion of his, but those wider factors should in my view always be clearly before us whenever we discuss this problem.
It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, in his earlier Motion that Parliament is about the only facet of our national life which is not televised. Of course, he was right, but he cannot claim that all those other facets have been improved or are being improved in quality and purpose because of television.
In the case of sport, for example, television's influence has been to drag down, to despoil, rather than to raise in quality. The Lord Chief Justice of England the other day had much evidence before him to support his charge that television was a significant factor in the spread of violence. If the television cameras turn to the crowd at a football match the invariable reaction on the part of some is to wave arms and clench fists. If there is a foul on the field of play it gets the full television treatment. The pictures do not simply report incidents, they create a climate for more of the kind to follow. Cricket has not been unscathed. The running on the pitch is not unconnected with the fact that the scene is depicted on the screens. I cannot think that the pictures of international cricket matches played in coloured pyjamas beneath the are lights in Australia do anything to improve the image of cricket.
I confess to being enthralled by some athletic contests I have seen on the screen, but the contamination is now spreading there. The Times' correspondent spoke recently of one hyped race as a soap opera. There was certainly a soap opera last Saturday at Crystal Palace. We learned that at the Friday athletic meeting one competitor did not run because they would not pay him an additional £1,700 appearance money. The big money which now changes hands in sport arises solely from television intervention. In the parish in which I live we now have one Sunday a year dominated by the traffic to the tennis tournament. The finals are staged on the Sabbath simply because the TV companies will pay extra millions of pounds if it is on a Sunday rather than on a Saturday. Looking at these and other factors, I am not convinced that our democratic processes should be subjected to the same influences as are now being brought to bear on these other facets of our national life; and our six months' experience does not lead me to vary that opinion.
The very interruptions and interventions that there were when the noble Lord, Lord Soames, was talking earlier this afternoon were uncharacteristic of the House I knew in pre-camera days. The most weighty argument in favour of the television cameras, I believe, is that advanced by my noble friend, the former journalist, Lord Ardwick. As he says, parliamentary reporting in most of the modern press does not, cannot or will not tell the electorate what is being done by their elected representatives. A contributor to a debate in Parliament has to say something fairly outrageous in order to get a mention in the tabloid press. In that deplorable context of the tabloid, I agree that the television news from all stations are absolute beacons
1006
of invaluable light. Nevertheless, the competition for readership, for an audience, which is now the prime cause for this denigration of values in the tabloids, is not entirely unknown in the broadcasting world. What might be called the "Dallas syndrome" is more a matter of widening the audience than of raising the standards.
If we were being asked to vote for or against the allocation of a cable for the separate and continuous live broadcasting of Parliament for the benefit of those who choose to select that channel, then maybe I would go into the Lobby of the "Contents". Despite the fact that he says the opposite, I still believe that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, leads us further along another path in which unnamed individuals would have the task or the opportunity to select what should be shown.
I wonder if on this point I might be allowed to refer to my own experience. It so happened that the Labour Opposition had an allotted day for debate in January and there was a discussion, as usual, about what should be put forward. It was known that at some future date I would seek to put forward certain ideas and I was invited to take that available date. When it was realised—or, certainly, when I realised—that this would be the start of the six months' experiment, I tried—and, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition would say, I tried hard—to pull out. I considered that I had a significant and reasoned argument to put forward and I wanted to stimulate a reasoned debate. The television cameras, it seemed to me, would not help that objective.
In the event, I was proven right. The heat, the light, the overcrowded Benches, the extra-long list of speakers were all alien to our normal debates. They did not help the reasoned discussion which Parliament should really be about. There were, I recall, offensive comments in the press beforehand that my opening speech should be cut short so that viewers could come the more quickly to a rather more spectacular speaker.
In the days after the debate, I received around 300 letters—which is a large mail for me although I have no doubt it would be small for other noble Lords. They were from across the country, from Cornwall to County Down and Aberdeen. One or two were from individuals whom I had known in wartime experience and had heard nothing of since. That in itself, I must confess, was a warming and indeed moving experience. But it was notable that those who wrote constructively and commented on the debate had all seen the actual live broadcast. Probably five or six of that total had seen only recorded extracts. It was, I think, quite significant that those who had seen something of both the live and the recorded broadcasts all commented on the different impressions that had been created.
I myself saw later in the Moses Room one of the extracts of a BBC recording. It made very good viewing. But it made no mention of the Labour Motion; there was no word or sign of the mover of that Motion. My noble friend the Leader of the Labour Opposition, who had so well supported my Motion, was not mentioned. Nor was the Deputy Leader, who gave a masterly reply at the end of the 10 hours' debate.

1007
They were kind enough to show me at around 1.30 a.m. and mentioned that I had the right to speak at the end, a right which of course noble Lords would appreciate I did not wish fully to exercise. I understand that complaint was made by our Select Committee about that particular extract and since then, certainly, more balanced extracts have been shown. I am sure that every effort will be made in any further extension to avoid that example. But, as was said on another occasion, if the right is once secured to take the cameras into both Chambers of Parliament on a permanent basis, who can then guarantee that such good behaviour will survive?
In my view, the experiment has provided us with sufficient experience already on which to base a judgment. We entered on the experiment on the basis of a six-month period. We should now reflect on that experience and come to a definite conclusion within the next few months. I hope that the House will be able to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that television is a very powerful factor in this country's affairs, and indeed in the affairs of all advanced countries; although I shall say at once that I do not share Lord Beswick's manifest dislike for it. It is a very powerful factor, and I suggest to your Lordships that it is a factor which it is important that we should seek to direct so far as we can in sensible and nationally beneficial directions.
When the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, calls in aid violence on television, he has obviously something there. There is too much—much too much. But the application of that argument to the televising of your Lordships' House does not seem to me to have any very direct connections. Whatever effects the televising of your Lordships' House may have on the British public—except for perhaps a reaction of tedium in respect of, what shall I say, myself or other noble Lords who may be speaking—surely, whatever else it does, it does not provoke violence. I hope that we can dismiss that argument pretty firmly.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about the reaction of the House, and indeed the televising of the first day of the procedure in January. My impression, subject to that of others of your Lordships, was that on that first day there was a tendency in the House, particularly at Question Time, a little bit to play to the cameras; and it is certainly true that the editing of that part of the debate which was not broadcast live—the first few hours were broadcast live and there can be no complaint about that—was less good than it should have been. I would agree with that. But I would say with some confidence as a reasonably regular attender of your Lordships' House that since then the effect of the cameras has not been at all harmful, and that your Lordships as a whole have come completely to ignore their presence. Therefore the fears which some people have that the cameras might constitute a temptation to certain of your Lordships to play to the cameras, make silly points, and so on, have really not been borne out.
Perhaps I may turn now to the, as always, impressive speech of my noble friend Lord Peyton.
1008
The House always listens to him with respect because he speaks with clarity, force and experience. However, I venture to demur when he says, "If we go on while the Select Committee are considering the matter we shall drift further into making the televising of the House permanent." With respect, that is not so. As I understand the procedure, whatever happens this afternoon, the Select Committee (still called rather curiously, I think, the Sound Broadcasting Committee) will report, and then I have no doubt that your Lordships' House will have a full day's debate—I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House will confirm that—on the decision whether or not to continue.
What is in issue this afternoon is simply whether or not, while those processes are taking place, we should continue to be televised. Here I would pick up something which my noble friend said. He said that we should reflect on our experience and in that way help the Select Committee. If we cease to be televised at the end of this month and we return to the spill-over period without it, some months will have passed and the recollections of all of us as to what exactly was the effect of televising on the House will be less sharp, clear and immediate than if the process were continuing.
I would therefore suggest to your Lordships that if the process is continuing while the Select Committee is sitting and while, as my noble friend Lord Peyton very properly suggests, those of your Lordships who desire to assist the Select Committee will give it advice, that advice will surely be more up-do-date and vivid than if we were discussing a matter which had faded back for some months. Your Lordships know that the long recess represents a real gap in parliamentary life, even though most of us are profoundly thankful to get away and have our holidays. Therefore, I suggest that my noble friend's very proper suggestion that the Select Committee will want to hear the views of your Lordships tends to the view that it would be much more effective if the experiment were to continue.
I originally agreed very much—and I still agree to some extent—that the difficult issue in this connection is the editing. I myself, when the experiment started, had considerable misgivings. I wondered whether the editing might not be quite damaging in its selection. I would not wish to pretend that I have entirely agreed with the editing. I have known occasions when I thought I had made quite a good speech but the editor apparently did not, and it was not reproduced on television. No doubt that has been the experience of many of your Lordships. But on the whole I think a very strong effort to be fair has been made by those charged with this singularly difficult task. And on the whole—though one can always quote exceptions and indeed I have had them quoted to me—this extraordinarily difficult task has been discharged in a way which clearly indicates that those responsible for it have been really doing their best to try to give a fair account.
When my noble friend refers to what he called "an intrusion into our affairs", I really must part company with him. Parliament is not a private debating society. We are part of Parliament and if our fellow countrymen can be given the opportunity to hear our proceedings and if they want to do so (as they apparently do), I think that it is quite wrong to regard

1009
their watching and listening to our proceedings as an intrusion.
Indeed, if your Lordships will cast your minds back to the beginning of modern systems of government in classical Greece, your Lordships will remember that public business was conducted in the Agora, the market-place, where every citizen could attend and listen. It is perhaps not fanciful to suggest that the wonders of modern technology have made the marketplace rather larger. But in any event Parliament is not a private matter. Parliament is a matter of great public concern and when the public want to watch and listen, and are able to do so, it seems to me that the onus must be on those who would deny them that opportunity rather than on those who would argue in its favour.
Another point which my noble friend Lord Peyton made, to which I listened with great interest, was that he thought the broadcasters regarded the televising of this House as a key to the House of Commons. Whether or not that is a strong argument, it does not really affect our immediate decision. Whether or not we continue to be broadcast while we are considering whether to make it permanent or not, cannot affect the decision of another place one way or the other. When we come to the final decision whether to be broadcast or not, then there is an argument for that; but there is no argument for saying that our continuing to be televised in these next few months affects the situation one way or the other.
I regard this anyhow as very much a matter for the other place and I do not think that your Lordships should get involved in it—though when my noble friend went on to say that if another place were broadcast then every sort of extremism, exaggeration and dramatic action would be televised and other matters would not, I could not help recalling that precisely the same thing was said the best part of 200 years ago when consideration was being given to the admission of the press to the Gallery of another place. If your Lordships turn up the old records you will see that just the same things were said: that all eccentricities, violence, and so on, would be publicised and serious debate would not. But, my Lords, for something like the best part of 200 years the press have been present both in your Lordships' House and in another place, and that is an accepted part of our constitution.
I do not want to be tempted into the main issue because that would only prolong this debate; but I would say on the temporary point, which is all we are concerned with, that both the broadcasting organisations are anxious to continue. I think that is significant. It must be all but unique to have the BBC and the editor of ITN taking the same point of view. It is quite interesting and quite encouraging for your Lordships' House that both those great organisations should want to continue to broadcast our proceedings.
I shall leave the House with this thought. There is really very little doubt that the past six months have done a great deal of good to this House. They have destroyed many illusions about it and they have made people outside realise what they had not fully realised before: that this is a House which conducts civilised and intelligent debates contributed to by people of
1010
great expertness and knowledge on a whole variety of subjects. I do not want to intrude upon party political issues but it is not long ago that your Lordships' House was what is called in another context "a threatened species". It is perhaps not a bad thing in the longer run for your Lordships' House to be seen in action by the public because I do not believe that a public which sees us in action will contemplate our destruction.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I too can declare this measure of interest: I did not vote either way on the original Motion. I had not my mind made up as to whether it would be a good thing or a had thing, hut I appreciated the value of an experiment. The decision the House took was that we would have the experiment for six months; then we would have a considered report and, having debated and considered that, we would make up our minds.
I have more than a feeling that to change from that decision, and, while the experiment goes on, to ask us to continue it for another three or four months—we do not know how long—is asking us to come to a premature conclusion. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, said that this is not the definitive decision. He must think we are very naive. Let us read the letters which we were asked to consider. The reason given by the BBC is to continue to satisfy this new public interest. There is nothing short-term about that. The ITV base their request on their sense of where the public expectation lies. Those are not arguments for a mere extension; they are arguments for the continuation for all time of the televising of the House.
I think we all have our ideas about how this has worked. I see it from this seat here, and I am a fairly regular attender. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that in many ways it was good television. On the day we started we had the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. No one would love to have missed that. But we do not get it every day. We do not get such interest when discussing the District Salmon Fishery Boards (Scotland) Bill. We do not even have the lights on. I can tell your Lordships this about this great population interest: the people of Scotland are not all that interested in the GLC. Yet this was what the last six months have been all about. We have had dramatic votes.
It is suggested that this House has more respect. I think we have. We have more interest. That was natural, because it was new, it was different. People wanted to see inside the House. We had the curiosity interest. Did we get understanding? I do not think so. People do not understand how we had great victories and they have suddenly disappeared because the Bill went elsewhere and something else happened there. There is not the understanding of Parliament. It is not just understanding of the House of Lords but understanding of Parliament. There is a job to be done there and it could only be seen with the televising of another place. It is the other place that ITV and the BBC want to televise. There, they will have the drama and interest; and we shall get very little consideration thereafter.
I should like to say something about the BBC programme, "Today in Parliament". I have probably

1011
had more publicity for anything I have said since I came here than I had as a Back Bencher in the other place. They do it well; they do it fairly; and they do justice to the House of Lords. They have a good listening audience at night, and more particularly in the morning. I do not think one can achieve that with television. When one comes to the editing and to the control of cameras, there lies the difficulty. I hate to say this, but sitting here I have watched the behaviour of people and I think there was a decline in standards. The first day was dreadful. At Question Time even the noble Lord had to get into the act. Everyone was getting into the act. Question Time lasted longer; it was noisier. I do not know how many speakers we have had in such a debate before, but on that occasion the debate went on until one or two in the morning, which is not usual.
We have to concern ourselves as to how televising affects this House. I have seen Members in our House moving around to get into camera shot. If the noble Lord, Lord Soames, had been here a little more often he would probably have seen it. This was the effect. I saw Ministers interjecting while other noble Lords were speaking. That would not have happened before. I have heard debates that were more like party political broadcasts and not entirely related to the kind of much more mature, much more considered approaches we have to many of the subjects we debate. That has gone to a certain extent.
It is wrong to say that the cameras are not intrusive. Of course they are intrusive. You cannot avoid them altogether. There are the lights and the heat. We have had a little of the effect of that today. It may well be that these can be put right, but we have to consider these matters and get views from the report that we sought and that we thought was coming. One does not change the rules in the middle of games. I refuse to be bounced. I see a number of noble Lords sitting there who were formerly Ministers. They know how civil servants used to try to bounce one into a hasty decision; and if one had the courage to do it, one said, no.
Let us take this the way we first laid it out. Let us have our six months; let us have the report, and then decide. We shall not forget the effect of televsion in two months. I think that it is quite wrong of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to suggest that. This can be of advantage to us, if we use it well and if we control the cameras to a certain extent. Certainly as I sit here, with the state of my eyes, the effect of these lights is that my head goes down. I have seen noble Lords and noble Baronesses with their heads down, and people automatically say, "Everybody is sleeping in that place". They are not. They are seeking to protect themselves from the glare of these lights.
We have a lot to learn. I think we have a lot to think about. We should not be bounced into this decision today. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, is well-meaning, but he is so wrong. I shall certainly vote this time and vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I speak with the gravity and brevity which your Lordships
1012
would expect of a Member of the Select Committee whose name—if I may venture to correct my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—has indeed become the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House.
In this Select Committee we shall take the business of writing the report extremely seriously. I am sure that we shall all look on our membership of that committee as a privilege and will feel that this debate, like the other debates on this subject which have preceded it, will have been of great value to us in making the report. We shall certainly take into account everything that has been said today, including the euphoria of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the scepticism, so well-expressed, of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. But what I think is important for us in preparing this report is that the experiment should be over. It will not be anything like so easy to write in the mood of tranquillity which noble Lords would expect of us if the lights are still on, the cameras are still buzzing, and the functionaries of the media are still to be found waiting in the corridors while we finished our report. This is surely logical.
Lord Soames: My Lords, will my noble friend permit me for a second to intervene? Do I understand that he says he is talking as a member of that committee? Can he then tell me why this recommendation was not made in its preliminary report?
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I think the reason why that was so was that the committee felt that the decision as to whether the televising should go on for the period after we rose this summer until the report was finished was a matter that the House should decide upon, and not the Select Committee itself.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? Surely if the Select Committee feels that it would be embarrassed by the continuation of the experiment while it is deliberating, it might have said so in its report. It does not.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I see no reason for that suggestion. I think that it was thought in the committee—there are members of it present in the Chamber at the moment—that it would be better if the decision to go on were taken by the House itself.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I understood, listening to the noble Lord who now has the Floor, that he was speaking in his own capacity and not on behalf of the committee. I should have thought that membership of a committee in no way debars a noble Lord from putting his point of view. But as a member of the committee he has done it with more thought as to the detail which may flow from it.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, my noble friend has described the situation extremely eloquently and lucidly, as one might expect. When my noble friends asked for my explanation for my introduction of this, I thought it appropriate to explain what the Committee thought. I think that that was a service of value to the House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This is not true.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, it is I submit true. The second point that I would make is one which has been made before by several noble Lords. If the House requests a Select Committee to write a report on the understanding that the experiment about which it is going to write is to last six months, it seems very odd to change the rules in the middle. After all, if you have a cricket match which has been planned for a day and the moment when stumps are to be drawn is at 7.30, you do not go on playing until 8.30 or 10.30 simply because you happen to be enjoying it.
There is the point which was made by the noble Lords, Lord Beswick and Lord Ross of Marnock, that there is obviously the possibility that this temporary arrangement would become a permanent one. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was sceptical about that, but nevertheless in this country we have had, as noble Lords will remember, a long history of temporary experiments becoming permanent or at any rate being very long lasting. I need not remind noble Lords of the consequences of Mr. Gladstone's temporary occupation of Egypt in 1885. For all these reasons I hope that when it comes to vote the House will support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
I have one other point to make. The terms of the letter from the chairman of ITN seem to me to give full support to the point which was made five minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. The writer of the letter assumes that we were involved in this House in an experiment which was going to lead to a permanent arrangement. No one who did not think that would use phrases such as:
"It would be a pity to halt the momentum while the project is going so well".
But this is not a project; this is an experiment in the upper house of a legislature. Consider the phrase,
"at this vital stage of the experiment".
It is not a vital stage because at the time when that letter was written the author of it must have supposed that the experiment was drawing to the end of the six months.
So, my Lords, I hope very much that we shall draw the conclusions which we should from this interesting and important experience—I agree with noble Lords who have paid tribute to the tact and skill of the cameramen and of the editors on most occasions—and prepare a useful, even an important, report and present the report to the House for future discussion.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as a member of the Select Commitee also, who had very carefully kept quiet in all these debates as befits those who are members of a Select Committee, may I say that he did not make it absolutely clear that he was speaking entirely for himself? If noble Lords are to consider anything, it is the report, and not the noble Lord's understanding of the report.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I should make it clear from the outset that I am
1014
speaking entirely for myself. I rise to support the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The holding of this debate at all at this stage on the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, is itself indicative of the effect that television is already having on the affairs of this House because it is normal in your Lordships' House, once a course of action has been determined, once a resolution has been passed, for it to be carried out. The procedure envisaged by the original resolution setting up the committee was that there should be an experiment for six months and that thereafter the Select Committee would report to the House. We are now departing from that procedure and this is just one small sign of the influence that the media are already having upon your Lordships' House.
I must say that as a general principle I am in favour of televising the proceedings of this House but that view is subject to a number of considerations. The first is its continuity and the second arises from the apparent present necessity for editing. If the House were to be televised continuously so that anybody in the United Kingdom could plug in at any time that the House was sitting and could see and hear what was happening there, my support for it would be quite unhesitating. However, until I have seen the report of the Select Committee and have had time to consider it, I am a little doubtful whether or not I agree that the proceedings should carry on in their present form.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that technically there can be little to take exception to. Initially the lighting was a little discomforting, but one now takes it for granted. Indeed, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that it had helped him to be able to read his papers without glasses. Anything that helps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to discharge his duties is most agreeable to me.
It must be admitted straight away that the presence of the operators and of the cameras here has been quite unobtrusive. The only thing that I have noticed
in physical terms has already been remarked upon by my noble friend Lord Beswick. I have found that my mail has increased very substantially, arising perhaps from the very fleeting glimpses that an admiring population occasionally may have of me in the broadcasts that do happen to occur. But I do not think that I am unique in your Lordships' House when I say that I have not seen any one of the broadcasts. I have not seen or experienced what has been done. This is partly due to ordinary parliamentary pressures, but there are of course business pressures as well. I was looking forward to the opportunity of considering what the Select Committee was going to say about the whole matter.
The televising of this House takes place in my opinion within the context of this House being one of the two public fora in which great debates on national issues take place. This is one of its most important functions, if not its leading one. It is therefore very important that if its proceedings are to be televised they should be televised as nearly as possible truthfully. When we set up the Select Committee many of us had in mind certain dangers which we thought might arise to which the Select Committee could address itself, particularly in view of the fact that the broadcasts were not going to be continuous but would be subject to editing.

1015
Some of us were a little worried, and some of us remain worried, about the impact upon the institutions of this House. One aspect which worries us, and about which we await the comments of the Select Committee, is the extent to which the party organisations—and I refer particularly to the Whips—influence the type of debate that is to be televised, the timing of debates, and connected matters.
Whips in your Lordships' House have not been unknown to seek to persuade their colleagues on the Back Benches, and they have not been unknown to try to arrange affairs as suits the usual channels rather better, perhaps, than they may suit individual Members of your Lordships' House. It is therefore a question of the choice of occasion and the choice of suitable debate. I will not enlarge on that aspect because my noble friend Lord Beswick has already dealt with it.
The other misgiving we have, particularly in regard to the editing of the proceedings in your Lordships' House, is the choice of what the broadcasting authorities consider to be newsworthy items. Sometimes the items considered newsworthy by the media are not always the vital matters of serious concern to the nation as a whole.
We were worried also—at least I was—about the tendency of the broadcasting medium to follow the priorities already established by the printed medium. The distinguished political editor of The Times, Mr. David Wood, who was held in considerable respect, and whose departure many of us regret considerably, offered himself of this opinion. He said when commenting on the BBC news programmes in the early morning, and indeed in the late morning, that they tended to give to the subjects discussed by them the same emphasis as was given in the press itself. He commented that this practice does not always result either in impartiality or in the correct selection of items which might be more in the national interest than those of mere temporary notoriety and popularity.
Some of us are worried too by what we call "the six o'clock syndrome". Your Lordships will be aware that, so far as the printed medium is concerned, anything said in your Lordships' House after six o'clock in the evening is virtually extinct for ordinary purposes because of the time at which the newspapers "go to bed". That is not invariably so but it is mostly so. One would like to have the views of the Select Committee as to how far the broadcasting companies have followed that same precept.
The other misgiving we had was that the editorial side of the new television medium might as a matter of pure inclination or convenience attempt to focus its attention on what one might term known personalities (I speak of those who already have a reputation in television) rather than allow their cameras and microphones to stray from time to time onto Members of your Lordships' House of distinguished character and quality who so far have proceeded to pursue such an unobtrusive if intellectual life that they have not attracted the attention of either the press or television. Those are the misgivings we have.
1016
As I indicated to your Lordships at the beginning of my remarks, I myself have had no personal experience of viewing the results of the broadcasts of this House. Speaking for myself alone, I would therefore wish to await the detailed and considered views of the Select Committee before I proceed further. One thing is vital. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, quoted from this week's Economist, and he was dead right. Television is a very powerful medium. One of the most important things we have to ensure is that the relationship between ourselves and that medium results in truthful and impartial representation being made to the British public.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has given a fascinating exposition of his view of some of the important problems which arise. However, with respect to the noble Lord those problems do not assuredly lead to the conclusion which he contends. The question as to whether to extend or discontinue the experimental period in no way pre-empts the substantive decision. That is so, irrespective of the letter and irrespective of what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, or my noble friend Lord Swynnerton may say about it.
This of course is not the occasion for any dress rehearsal or for me to seek from these Back Benches to refute the committed speech along the lines given by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I do not propose to do so. However, the very careful argument of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil demands a reasoned response.
There is no reason to suppose that continuance could in any way have a detrimental effect upon the dignity and status of your Lordships' House, upon our working relationships with another place, and upon the conduct of our own affairs—as the noble Lords, Lord Beswick and Lord Ross of Marnock, have suggested. It is true that there was a measure of criticism in the early days, but is there not cause for criticism in the early days of any experiment? Furthermore, having got over the initial days, the situation now seems, I hope your Lordships will agree, to be wholly satisfactory. To suggest that it is in some way conducive to lawless violence is to my mind beyond all comprehension.
Much has been said about instruments of intrusion and the oblongs of torment which disfigure our Chamber, but they are not to the point, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has observed. We are a public institution and the fact of the matter is that, whatever may be said about anything, a reasonable account of our proceedings has been taken into the homes of the people and this, among many people from all walks of life, has evoked an acute interest in politics. If the art of the possible is to be made possible then it will be by communication. Television is the great and universal communicator. It would be irrational, premature and arbitrary to discontinue the experiment at this stage, and wholly unnecessary. It would be irrational because, the longer the experiment, the greater the material on which to make the ultimate decision. We should cease to help the Select Committee if we were to discontinue at this stage.

1017
I must say to my noble friend, with all respect and with total sincerity—and I wholly accept that he is speaking in his personal capacity—that I do not understand the case that he makes for a pause for reflection. As I see it, it is nothing to do with what the Select Committee thought or did not think. If one looks at the problem straight on, why should there be any need for a pause for reflection and how could this help in any way? The reverse would appear to be the case. The more information that is before the committee the better it will be able to make its recommendations and the more information we shall have on all sides of the House to consider what we do in the ultimate decision. I took a little time on that point, with respect to my noble friend, only because I could not see his logic.
It would be arbitrary because it might be seen by the viewing public as arbitrary to discontinue at this stage. That is perhaps the last thing that your Lordships would wish. Moreover, it might be seen as some sort of veiled criticism of the television companies and their employees, who have done a fair job in difficult circumstances. That appears to be common ground, from all the speeches made in your Lordships' House today. Why should that impression be given? What good would it do? What sense would it make?
Finally, it is unnecessary because there is no justified anxiety of which any noble Lord has yet spoken and no cause for complaint of which any noble Lord has yet spoken. As to the key to the argument in regard to the other place—and this is my final point in trying to deal with the points made by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil—that is surely a matter for the other place. What is a matter for your Lordships' House is surely that the threat of abolition recedes with every day's coverage of our proceedings on television. Whatever may be said about the editing—and that no doubt will come out in discussion, negotiation and, if you like, in the melting pot—at all events the electorate is entitled to see, and is entitled to continue to see, the workings of the institution which it is being invited to abolish. For that reason I support the Motion.
5.4 p.m
Earl Attlee: My Lords, like many other noble Lords I was not in favour of the proceedings of this House being televised—so much so that I made a point of leaving your Lordships' House at the start of business and did not return until eight o'clock in the evening when, I was told, the television cameras would be off. I returned to stay until midnight only to find that the cameras were still operating.
I was worried—and to a certain extent I am still worried—that selected proceedings in your Lordships' House could be presented in a light which is favourable either to one particular party or one particular point of view. I believe that it has become obvious that the television companies have gone to a great deal of trouble to produce a balanced view for the general public. That is not really surprising since up to now they have been, as it were, on probation. We must ask ourselves whether, if this become a permanent part of your Lordships' House, that balanced picture will be retained. Personally I believe that it will.
1018
I have to admit that I was also worried that the television companies might broadcast pictures of our more elderly Members either in deep concentration as they listened to a debate or on entering or leaving your Lordships' Chamber not exactly at the run. That did not happen either. My overriding worry was that the lights would be obtrusive. I regret to say that my worst fears have been realised. I find that after two hours, let alone six hours, when I leave the Chamber I am suffering from what I call television eye-tis. That may just be me, because the noble Viscount the Leader of the House says that the light helps him. For myself, I find it very obtrusive and I should like to come into the Chamber wearing dark glasses; but I have refrained from doing that.
If the brightness of the lights is not bad enough, it is undoubtedly true that on a hot summer's day they add to the amount of heat being produced. As noble Lords mentioned earlier, there are television cameras which will work in a very much lower intensity of light. I hope that the television companies will use those new cameras if the experiment continues.
What no one can deny is that since the advent of televising the House the general public have a far greater knowledge of how we operate and what we do. I think it is probably true to say that today there are very few people outside the House who would agree with the words written by W. S. Gilbert:
"The House of Peers, thoughout the war,
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well".
Now the public know that we down awful lot. They know that we sit very late. They know that we can affect legislation from another place; and of course they now know that we do it very well.
There are a surprising number of noble Lords who wish to speak whenever a note is posted saying that the House is to be televised on a particular day. That is possibly not all that bad because it has meant that, overall, speeches have become slightly shorter.
Noble Lords have referred to editing and have said that they would like the House to do the editing. That would be very dangerous. The radio programmes "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament" have been mentioned. We do not have any say over those programmes because we do not know whether or not we are being recorded. It just happens that the editors, in their wisdom, have never so far as I know shown me speaking. They have televised me sitting down and possibly have shown me in contemplation, but never have I appeared actually standing and speaking. Some of my friends have asked me, when I say that I have been in the House of Lords, whether I was actually there. Then they say that they heard me on "Today in Parliament" or "Yesterday in Parliament". It would seem that my voice fits better than my face.
Therefore I join other noble Lords on these and other Benches and will vote for the continuation of the televising of our proceedings.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I shall vote for the continued televising of the proceedings in your Lordships' House. When on the 27th November last we debated the ground rules

1019
for the television experiment I spoke in favour of allowing it to proceed, not least because I argued that television was an educating medium which we could no longer afford to do without if we wished to enhance understanding among our fellow citizens of the role played by your Lordships' House. I believe the experiment or "trial" as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, called it, has contributed very much to the enhancement for which I then hoped.
Perhaps I may briefly tell your Lordships why I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. When he introduced his Motion the noble Lord touched upon the greater respect for this House and the improved understanding of it which television had brought about. It is only a small proportion of the population which listens to Today in Parliament; a somewhat larger number reads the quality press in which our proceedings are reported to some extent, and though a very much greater number reads the tabloid press, it is not particularly interested in our proceedings. Our debates do not suit the tabloid format nor is Parliament one of the institutions which is uppermost in the minds of many readers of tabloids. Lastly, there is a proportion of the population which does not take a paper at all and which does not listen to radio. We do not reach and never have reached the great mass of the population, but I believe very sincerely that during the experiment we have reached a great deal of it.
For a considerable proportion of the population, the televising of the proceedings of your Lordships' House has been quite literally an eye-opener. As regards the role that we play in the parliamentary process, I will not say that it is better understood but that it is suddenly understood. Where there was darkness there is now perhaps light. Also much better understood is the relevance of this House to the government of the country. The press is largely national and London oriented, but both the BBC and the IBA have regional structures and their regional organisations have made quite considerable use of material covering our proceedings, for example on the Local Government Bill. Our fellow citizens have become aware of the very great expertise which is available here and which is frequently deployed. I believe that all this stems from the experiment.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the coverage and the penetration of television have served your Lordships well. Thus, I hope that your Lordships will not treat the Motion passed on the 27th November as sacrosanct and/or inviolate, but will support today's Motion and thus enable what I believe to have been a good and qualitative experiment to continue.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that we may all, in our different ways, be deluding ourselves. We have been talking about an experiment and the idea that this experiment should continue for a few more months. I would submit that the word "experiment" in this connection is ill taken.
When we talk about an experiment in the scientific or the medical world we are discussing certain
1020
procedures which are undertaken—for instance, in the medical world a certain number of patients may be given a particular drug, while other patients are made to believe that they have taken the same drug, and then the difference in health is observed. These are procedures which, when concluded, will normally have the unanimous agreement of those who have directed the experiment, and indeed of the scientific or medical body which may be concerned. In that sense our Select Committee neither can conduct nor have been conducting an experiment.
One can experiment with the physical questions relating to televising your Lordships' House, such as how painful the lights are—and I am among those who find them very trying—or whether or not a good picture technically can be obtained, or whether adventitious noise can be cut out; but these are all features which cannot be assessed by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House but surely only by experts in broadcasting who can compare the televising of your Lordships' House with the televising of other comparable assemblies of persons. Beyond that are the questions of whether or not it is a desirable matter, or whether it is a good or bad thing that televising should continue.
The kind of questions that the Select Committee will
be looking at no doubt are important. They are questions such as: is it or is it not possible, in an abbreviated programme of some 15 minutes duration, to give a fair and unbiased picture of the course of a discussion which may have gone on for several hours. No doubt the Select Committee, perhaps unanimously, or perhaps by a majority, will come up with an opinion about that, but it will be an opinion which any of us who have watched some of the video tapes that have been put on for our benefit—and I have only watched a few—could arrive at for ourselves. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the fact that during a certain period one or both television channels have done the job very satisfactorily is no particular guarantee for the future. We would be making a bet.
Therefore, if over a six-month period the Select Committee has not by now obtained enough material to deal with the very limited number of questions which it is qualified to answer, then it seems to me there is no argument for us to give it more material, or we shall be told at the end of the period that it is now so overwhelmed with material that it requires even longer to produce its report. I submit that the people who are qualified to judge whether this is or is not a desirable measure are not a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and I should be very surprised if it came up with a unanimous recommendation. They may not even be your Lordships' House as a whole, since the argument from some noble Lords has been that the public have a right to this access to your Lordships' House. I suspect that nothing as dignified or as important or far-reaching will in the end colour our decision.
I suspect that the decision lies between those such as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and some other noble Lords who think that television is a boon and a blessing to mankind, and others such as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and myself, who feel that on the whole the world without television would be a nicer place. That is something which no Select Committee

1021
will alter in the case of either the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, or the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and myself.
It therefore seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, has right on his side when he says that the House decided—and rightly or wrongly the House decided by a good majority—that six months should be given to what I shall have to call an experiment, that the material has been provided, the issues which fall to be resolved cannot be affected by the provision of further material, and therefore, unless there is a case for saying that your Lordships positively enjoy the lighting, the cameras and the attention, which it is assumed we command in the country, then we have the right to say that we shall keep to our original decision.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I cannot say that my post-bag has been in the least increased during the course of this experiment. I have no evidence that anyone has seen me or heard any speech that I have made in your Lordships' House. However, my younger son rang me the other day and said, "I have seen you on television; you were leaving the Chamber". The Lord may watch my comings and my goings but I should much rather my family did not.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it is not often that in following the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I can say that I agree with him. Seldom perhaps can I make that comment. But on this occasion I agree with him, and I wholeheartedly confess to having a great deal of respect for what he said this afternoon.
It is true that we are not this afternoon debating the merits or demerits of televising the House. Would that we were. If we had the report I should be only too happy to do so. I am ready to debate the issue at any time, whether at the end of six months, seven months, eight months or whatever.
I was surprised that I could find no recommendation from the Select Committee that there should be a debate. It did not ask for one; there was no recommendation. I suppose that it will be argued that the House got the feeling from a Question that was asked the other week about whether the experiment should continue. It is interesting that that Question provoked three supplementary questions in favour of continuing and one against, and the edited version of our debates on television that evening gave the three questions in favour and ignored the one against!
I use that only as an example. To me it is indicative of the partiality that has been shown throughout the piece so far. I do not think that it was a good basis for the normal channels to go ahead—because that is what this is all about. The normal channels go ahead and organise a debate, and two letters from directors of the corporations support them in the organisational process. My noble friend Lord Ross was quite right: these two letters give the impression that it is not just an experiment but that already there is an element of permanency.
We all knew from the beginning that there is not a great deal of interest in the media in televising the
1022
proceedings of this House. Anybody who thinks that is being conned. The demands of the television companies are for televising the other place. That is why they want to extend the experiment—to keep it alive. It is not as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, that the Select Committee or we will forget the effect of it. That is nonsense. If I were
a member of that committee. I should be a wee bit insulted to think that it was suggested that by now I had no views and needed another six months, and if the experiment finished now I should forget what had happened. If I was on that committee and somebody said that to me, I do not think I should be very pleased. There is no way that the members of that committee I know will have doubts or will forget. None of them is that kind of person. It is an attempt to keep the experiment running while the other place builds up to a debate, with all the publicity and the extra pressure that that will put on it. That is another subject for debate; but that is the fact of the matter.
We have discussed today the intrusion of the cameras. In a debate some months ago I quoted a comment made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor many years ago. I heartily endorse what he said. He said that all an experiment can do is tell us whether the lights and the cameras are in the right place, and whether the lenses are strong enough to catch Back-Benchers as well as Front-Benchers, and other such technical details. He said that we should not know the effect on the House and on the public perhaps for many years. That is what those of us who have a gut reaction against the intrusion believe.
The intrusion takes a number of forms. It is not just the lights, though they are bad enough. The effect of the lights and the heat on the fabric and on the beautiful renovated roof has been mentioned to me. I do not know whether the heat will have an effect or whether it has been evaluated. But people to whom I have spoken who have sat in the Gallery say that sometimes in some parts the heat is unbearable. If it is unbearable to them, what is it doing to the building? But that is an aside. The lights and the television cameras are one thing.
The real intrusion is into the business of the House. Like many noble Lords, I do not often miss attendance at our debates. I have noticed the arrangement of business on the days when the House is being televised. I do not object. I rather enjoy the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, the noble Lords, Lord Home and Lord Rochester, and the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who have all taken part in these arranged debates. But we know that it has been arranged. The long list of speakers is indicative of another part of the arrangement. In my view that cannot be good for the kind of debate that ought to be taking place in this Chamber.
That might sound like sour grapes. People may say that I and others like me object because we have never been televised. I do not object. I know why I have not been televised. I specialise in and tend to speak on matters such as social security, which is of no interest at all to television. It is never here for those debates. In fact, there are few noble Lords here for such debates. Perhaps if they were televised we should have a good attendance and a lot more speakers. I think that that would augur well for public consumption.

1023
I also take an interest in transport, and millions of people up and down the country are also interested in it. But it is not sufficiently important to be televised; or perhaps there are not enough big names in those debates. That is the result of television. We are being manoeuvred into becoming part of the entertainment world. That is what it amounts to. We shall be televised if our debates are entertaining enough and good television, but not necessarily if it is good for Parliament. That is one of my main objections.
The editing has been mentioned, and I mentioned the instance of the recent Question. There are many others, and we shall probably come back to them when we eventually get the report from the Select Committee. There is no doubt that the editing has left much to be desired.
There is another point. I speak to as many people as I can, most of whom, thank goodness, still go to work or to their business during the day and therefore cannot sit in front of a television set when the broadcasts take place. I have had the odd comment of interest or curiosity but there has certainly been no greater understanding, although we hear about these millions of people from the directors or from certain other noble Lords. Neither have I had an increase in correspondence, and I know of few noble Lords who have. We have had the massive lobbies on such questions as the abolition of the democratically-elected authorities up and down the county, the privatisation of the sick pay scheme and transport; but they would have taken place in any event. Of course I have had correspondence on those matters, but that has nothing to do with television. On the contrary, it may be in spite of it. I certainly do not know of any great increase in interest as a result of television.
Party conferences are televised all the time. The only editing is by the consumer in turning the knob in the front room, the kitchen or wherever else the television is watched. That is the kind of television that I hoped we should be arguing for, rather than this edited version at the whim of whoever. I do not know who it is and I may never find out, but I know that he does not do a very good job. But if our debates were on a channel which catered for local government, politics and so on by themselves, people could control what they watched, and we should then understand how they were editing it. That is a different argument, a different debate, and perhaps I should have no hesitation in reviewing my stance on that.
However, until that happens, I am bound to say that the whole matter is damaging to the institution and will be even more damaging to Parliament when it becomes permanent. I shall certainly withhold much of what I should like to have said until we receive the report of the Select Committee. In the meantime, I would say that we could well afford to end the experiment now, and await the report of the Select Committee.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, before the experiment that we have had in our Chamber for the last six months, I asked myself three questions. Like other noble Lords, I wanted to reason with myself as to why we should have televising of our House. I now have the answers. The first question was: why televise
1024
either House of Parliament at all? Why invite the cameras into your Lordships' House? It has been called an intrusion—I do not agree with that word. The next question was: why should we—and should we—give the electorate an inside insight into how government works? The third question was: would it enhance our reputation and thereby give confidence to the people of our country? Then, would it help in communication between Government and those who elect the Government and, anyway, pay for this part of Parliament? Furthermore, would it give much of an opportunity to put Members, either collectively or individually, across to the public?
Having thought that those questions were important, I then voted for the experiment which we have now had for the last six months. At the end of the six months, I have had to answer every question in the affirmative. This means that, despite the fact that halfway through, about three or four months ago, I thought, "Never again; we are being imposed upon; we do not like it; the lights are too bright", et cetera. I now feel that this is an experiment which might well be here to stay. I think it might well be here to stay if the other place do not have television. Therefore, all my queries are answered in the affirmative.
Before saying that I shall certainly be voting for the continuation, I should like to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House if the cost of the televising of this House will be the same as it has been up until now? Before we started the experiment, I remember that there was talk of a great many thousands of pounds that would have to be paid by Parliament.
I, like every other noble Lord, read the letters from both channels, the BBC and the ITN. I was amazed. They have obviously colluded but I was very interested that they both wanted to continue. Therefore, having agreed that the answers are affirmative, perhaps I may say en passant that the question whether it would give an opportunity to put Members collectively or individually across to the public was to my mind answered overwhelmingly in the affirmative.
I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating all three Front Benches in the way that they have been able to obtain the big audiences that the channels now tell us we have. The public have certainly enjoyed it. I do not think they would miss it if we did not have it; but I think also that they have been made aware of how Government is run, how it works, and certainly that so far as this Chamber is concerned we have some of the best brains in this country.
There are two provisos. One is that both channels shall in the future work together as they have in the past. Another one is something that has been put to me by very many people—too many for my liking. It is, why are so many of your Lordships asleep? I take great trouble to reply that your Lordships are not asleep but are listening, sometimes in the only way that we can, through the speakers at the back of the Benches. Very few noble Lords are listening by this means at this moment, so perhaps they can hear me easily—if it is worth it to the television cameras or anyone else!
With those two provisos, I should prefer that the extension went on until the spring. I do not think there is any point in pushing the committee to provide us

1025
with a report, which has to be in depth, by Christmas. I think that that is far too soon and would perhaps make the members of that committee work right through until we meet again at the end of October. With those few words, I hope that the Motion will be passed, and that the amendment will be either withdrawn or rejected.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall try to be brief for two reasons. First of all, many of the points that are to be made have already been made and I do not want to bore your Lordships with tedious repetition. The other reason is that I intend to speak in the debate following this one and therefore the sooner we come on to it the better pleased I shall be.
The first point I want to make is this. I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that when you made the decision as to whether or not the House should be televised, you did so on the basis of a considered Select Committee recommendation. On that occasion the Select Committee had studied the matter in depth; it had interviewed all kinds of people and it had considered the matter very closely indeed. Your Lordships were therefore able to have the benefit of its recommendation and took the decision upon the basis of that recommendation.
The situation today is completely different. The Select Committee is unable to make a recommendation. Indeed, it makes no recommendation. It passes the matter over to your Lordships. It has done so no doubt because it has not been able to give the proper and considered consideration to the experiment we have had so far. Therefore, the debate today is quite different from the one we had on 27th November. It is of a different quality. We are not being asked now to decide upon the basis of a Select Committee recommendation but upon a simple Motion by an individual Member of this House. Therefore, the quality of the debate and the quality of the recommendation is quite different.
I shall vote tonight in favour of the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I think that is the proper thing to do under all the circumstances. Your Lordships were good enough to elect me to the Select Committee. Indeed, while I have been a Member of the Select Committee, and bearing in mind the decision to which your Lordships came on 27th November—against my will; I did not vote for it—but bearing in mind the decision of the House that there would be an experiment for six months, I decided, because I am a true democrat, that my duty to that committee and to this House was to try to make the experiment work.
I believe that Members of the Committee will agree that I have done everything possible to see that your Lordships should be presented with a reasonable and proper experiment after which the Select Committee should consider everything that has gone on, should consider all aspects of the experiment, should get the views of your Lordships and the views of other people, should sit down to evaluate all the information and should then, following due consideration, come forward to your Lordships with a proper recommen-
1026
dation. That, in my view, is the democratic thing to do. That is the right thing to do. That is the proper thing to do. It is the most efficient thing to do. It will be the most beneficial thing to do so far as the future televising of this House is concerned.
It would be a pity, frankly, if we now pre-empt the result of the experiment because that is what we shall be doing. In our individual way, without the benefit of a recommendation of the Select Committee, we shall be saying that the experiment has been a success. But we do not know. We have not fully considered all the aspects of the experiment and the implications of the experiment for the future. That is why I think that it would be wise of the House, and that it would be in the interests of the future of the televising of this House, if your Lordships voted tonight for the amendment rather than for the Motion.
The noble Lord, Lord Soames, said at the beginning of his speech that all the lighting would have to be taken down and that this would be a pity. As a matter of fact, all the lighting will have to be taken down anyway. A different sort of lighting, a different sort of televising, is required at the State Opening of Parliament. On that technicality, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it makes no difference at all. I repeat that I hope that your Lordships will take the wise decision tonight, that you will end the experiment on the 31st July, and that you will allow your committee to evaluate it and come forward with a proper, considered recommendation for the House to consider.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I agree absolutely with what my noble friend Lord Soames tried to do when introducing this Motion. My noble friend suggested that we should not attempt a re-hash of the general principle but should try to confine ourselves to the narrow point that is involved in the difference between the proposal and the amendment. I am afraid that it has not come off. I am afraid—it was, I suppose, inevitable—that the House has strayed into the general principle as well. But one thing is absolutely clear and cannot be gainsaid. It is that we debated and eventually voted upon the principle as to whether or not we would allow the cameras in. There was a full day's debate allowing for discussion of all the detail with no restrictions. The conclusion reached very clearly by the House was that it would agree to an experiment for six months and that, at the end of six months, a Select Committee would give a report. That was clear. If we allow ourselves to be pushed off that course, we shall be advertising an inconsistency that would not be to the benefit of the general reputation of the House.
Quite apart from the views that any of us may hold on whether or not we should have television, the conclusion was that we would have it for six months and that, at the end of the six months, the Select Committee would review the whole thing, principle as well as detail, and would give a recommendation after which the House could once again see how it felt on the matter. I personally would not like to see us deviate from that. I believe that our reputation for knowing what we are doing and being consistent is very important. The amendment of my noble friend Lord

1027
Peyton achieves exactly that. The amendment is in conformity with the general instruction of the House as a whole. My noble friend's amendment reflects a consistency that the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Soames would depart from.
Having said that, one has to recognise of course that so long as one lives, one can change one's will. There is nothing wrong with that. If, however, one wants to change what in this case was a definite decision, clearly given by a full House in proper debate, there should be very good reasons for a change of view. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Soames, in the light of his criteria of judging the matter on the narrow points thrown up by the Motion and the amendment, can say that there are good reasons.
What are the arguments that have been produced for extending the experiment? The whole of the argument of my noble friend Lord Soames can really be summarised as the belief that it would be a pity, having gone so far and when there is a chance of carrying it on, were it not to be carried on. I do not believe that this view, standing alone, is very formidable. Then there was the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, whose main argument really was the trouble to which people would have to go to take down the lights and the equipment, with the possibility of their having to put them back again later if the House decides to have television as a permanent feature. I am not impressed by that argument. Why should the lights be taken down? They are not doing anyone any harm. If there is a possibility that in three, four, five or six months' time we want them back, they can be left in place until we have had our next vote, following the report of the Select Committee, on whether or not we want television. The cameras can be moved out. That is no great problem.
The other argument came from the persuasive tongue of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The burden of his argument was that this great experiment belongs to the nation and that the people, as individual electors, are entitled to see all that is going on at all times, especially what goes on in Parliament. My noble friend produced the old chestnut of the first Parliament meeting in the market place. There was no question then of covering it up. But the big difference between what my noble friend suggested we should continue here and what took place in the market place is that those listening to Parliament in the market place were reaching a judgment with their own two eyes. They were forming a judgment on what they heard and what they saw. It was not the judgment of someone manipulating a camera at the time.
My noble friend went further in producing another old chestnut, if he does not mind my saying so. There was a time when Parliament would not even allow in the press. Because a mistake had apparently been made in keeping out the press, it is argued that we should allow the cameras in now. No one knows better than my noble friend that there are innumerable sketch writers to tell us what is going on in the Chamber. On many occasions, one completely contradicts the other. I agree that if one reads the lot, one will get some picture of what happened. But there is no question of having a thousand cameras with different people showing different facets and giving the whole of the story.
1028
It is confined to one. It is a power that is very dangerous.
To continue the experiment—if your Lordships wish to call it that—while the Select Committee is supposed to be giving thought to the matter is absolutely equivalent, in my view, to sending the jury into the jury room to come to a verdict while evidence is still being given in the main court. I do not believe that this is a very clever thing to envisage. At the end of the day, Parliament is really based upon procedures in law. In law, we insist on all the evidence, all the facts, and the cross-examination, after which the jurymen go into a room to consider quietly and calmly their verdict remembering as much of the proceedings as they are capable of doing. If one juryman forgets, another will remember. In that way, one achieves a calm, considered decision on which to form a judgment. I wonder what credence we would give to any critic who gives a write-up on any show having written the critique before he has seen the show right through. I believe that the general idea or thinking is that it would be a pity to stop what is happening now because the continuity would be helpful.
A real problem has arisen out of this debate. If there is no real argument—and I have not heard one yet—to justify continuing beyond the six months, which was clearly and definitely given by the House after a detailed debate and with all the advice that we could get, if there is no argument to justify going beyond that instruction, then what has caused noble Lords to want to reflect an inconsistency by going back on what the House had decided? The only thing that has happened is that two letters have been written by the people who want to be able to extend their territory into both Houses of Parliament—and into another place more than this one. Those letters are the only things which I can see have brought about any need to give any rethink to the decision which we made.
I have been disturbed a little—excellent though the speeches have been—by the insular approach by many of my noble friends and noble Lords everywhere in the House. They have said that it has been a good thing for the House of Lords. In many respects I think that it has been a good thing, so far. Indeed, I am rather proud to be a Member of this House of Lords as should everybody who is here—
Noble Lords: Well done! Hear, hear!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is no need for satirical comments. I was making a serious point which should be the view of everybody here. It is not funny. We are an important part of Parliament, and being a part of Parliament gives us great power. However,—if it be that we are grown up—I do not think that we ought to approach this particular issue on the basis of whether or not it is good only for the House of Lords. I should have thought that, from the point of view of the cameras and the pictures, the House of Lords could not lose on that score with the crimson—
Lord Somers: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord interrupted me last time. I have been in the game long enough to recognise that if you cannot win an argument on merit, try and laugh them out of court if you can. This is not a laughing matter. I am saying that it may be good for the House of Lords for the time being. Indeed, it could not be otherwise. The crimson, the gilt and the way in which we conduct ourselves, our general manner, could not help but give a good impression. However, if we approach this matter without the naivete with which some seem to approach it, then we ought to know that the people from outside who want to bring in the cameras—not my noble friends—are using this House deliberately as a stalking horse to get into the other place. There is no doubt about it. I believe that we must take that into account when we come to our conclusion.
If we support the proposition of my noble friend Lord Soames today, the impression would be—whether or not it is true I do not know—that the Lords have confirmed the need to have Parliament televised. The impression along the corridor would be that our considered view is that is has been an outstanding success and that it ought to be done. I do not believe that that is an impression which we ought lightly to give, but that is precisely what would happen.
I hope that my noble friends and colleagues in all parts of the House will be consistent. We came to a conclusion. It was a fair conclusion. It was one with which I did not agree, but it was a fair conclusion and the majority was clear. We said that we would try it for six months. My guess is that many noble Lords voted for the Motion on the clear understanding that it would be for only six months, that then the matter would be considered by a Select Committee, and then we would come to our formal conclusions. Be consistent; keep to that. I do not believe that the letters which have come from the television companies ought to be taken into account at all.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him one simple question? This is a serious question in view of his analogy. Does he agree that the more evidence which goes before a jury the more likely they are to return a useful and true verdict?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend is also a learned friend and I thought that I had dealt with that matter in my general submission that we follow the law courts. You give the evidence, then you put the jurymen quietly into a room without any other intrusion and they come to their decision. I believe that there would be the opposite effect if you still have the experiment taking place while they are supposed to be giving their supposedly calm and objective consideration.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, all my instincts and impulses are to do everything possible to open Government; to open every institution of Government; and to give the public the widest and deepest possible opportunity of seeing how the Government, who are responsible to them, are working. I believe that the "experiment", as it has
1030
been called, of the past six months, has to some extent fulfilled that task. It has certainly been popular with the public, and in some ways that frightens me. It frightens me because I believe that the televising of this House has given this House an importance above that which it actually possesses in our constitution.
I should like to see a good deal more examination of the mass votes which have taken place in this House while the House has been televised, and I should like the viewer to understand how those votes have been collected, what conclusion they represent, and how representative they are of public opinion. To that extent my fear is that the televising of the House of Lords has given the public not just an insight into this Chamber, but also an often false view of the way in which this Chamber can be exploited within our constitution. It may be that to that extent, if the experiment continues, we shall be asked many questions, and very relevant questions, as to why we are sitting here, what right we have to sit here, who we are representing when we speak and, above all, who we are representing when we vote.
Nevertheless, I believe that in general the experiment has been a success and I should like to see it continued. I am prepared to take the risks which I have mentioned in the belief that if the experiment continues there will be more and more public questioning of the role of this House and, I hope, questioning which will result in the reform of this House.
However the fair question has been asked about why we should continue the televising when we had first decided that the experiment would last only for six months. The very simple answer to that—and I admit that it is not a conclusive answer—is that it would be rather silly to give it up for a few weeks or, indeed, for a few months, and that the Select Committee and Members of this House would gain from the extra experience. I hope that those who are responsible for the camerawork and the editing would also gain from the extra experience.
I do not want to criticise unduly the camerawork, the editing and the mechanical side of the televising over the past six months. Indeed, I believe that there is a good evidence that the people who have been in charge of the televising have learnt very quickly. I would mention one aspect of this in particular which has not been at all prominent in previous speeches. It is the televising not just of this Chamber but of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade, of which I am a member. When the cameras first came in there was severe criticism of the mechanics of the way in which they did their job, particularly the way in which they focused on the witnesses rather than on what is essential in a Select Committee—the interchange of question and answer. I think they learnt that lesson quickly. I believe, from what little I have seen watching in the Moses Room, that the televising of that Select Committee has now got to a much higher standard than it achieved at the beginning.
Therefore, on balance it seems to me that the argument should be in favour of the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, to continue this experiment. I believe that the people of the country have just as much right as the people now in the Public Gallery to see the affairs of this House, and indeed to

1031
see the affairs of Parliament as a whole. When one considers the great advantages of those who live in the vicinity of Westminster compared with the majority of the country, I think television can redress that balance.
However, I should like to finish by giving two warnings to both the television organisations which have been responsible for the televising over the past six months. First, that if they continue to concentrate (as they did very much at the beginning and do to a lesser extent now, but it is still there) on shots of well-known personalities as entertainment, then they will turn the House, or the majority of the House, against them.
The second criticism, or warning, is much more serious. So long as this House exists as it is today I think we would all agree that its greatest value is the interchange of view and opinion on all sides of the House. I do not believe that this has been adequately expressed in what little I have seen of the reproduction on television. If the television authorities continue to concentrate on Front Benches; if they continue to assume that the Government must always have the last word; if they continue to portray the Government view from their Front Bench and the Opposition view from their Front Bench as the major items of interest in this House, they will miss the purpose and the value of this House.
My suggestion to those organisations responsible for televising is that, if they get this extra period, and if they wish the majority of Members of this House to see, through that extra period, a reason to continue televising this House, then they have to enter much more into the spirit of the arguments from all sides of the House, and they have to get away from the Establishment attitude that the major task of Opposition is to provide the Government with a mouthpiece and a set of faces, even if that has been balanced earlier by the Opposition. They have to show that the value of this House lies in the views which come from all sides and from all Benches.
I would suggest that this extra period on which we are now deciding could well be used for that purpose to show a much wider, much deeper and much more genuine view of the work of the House of Lords than has been apparent so far.
6.5 p.m.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long. Perhaps I may say straightaway that I shall support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I support many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, has told us that the public think that some of us are asleep some of the time. I do not want to exaggerate, but it is possible that some of us may have had our eyes closed to avoid the glare from the lights.
The television cameras are here today, and they are here because there is an agreement, although I should otherwise be surprised that they are here. It is rather like the headmaster and the masters of a school meeting to decide whether there should be an extra half-holiday, and that meeting takes place in the presence of the whole school.
The cameras have, in a sense, already changed the character of this House. They have changed it in the
1032
sense of the length of proceedings and perhaps in the number of speakers. The debate which was first televised in this House was a great success. I happened to see that debate on television. It showed the workings of this House and the kind of work that the House does. On the other hand, I do not think we want every day to be, as it were, coronation day with these powerful illuminations.
On another occasion I have seen the House when it was almost empty. A camera has been on the speaker, and another camera appeared to be televising the comings and goings in the public gallery or the press gallery. Of course a lot of the material will have gone into what, I think, is called "the can". What will happen to that material in years to come? BBC Radio sometimes bring out their sound recordings from the archives, with a commentator, and the way they do that makes me have considerable misgivings as to the future.
We have been described as "good entertainment". Well, we are not supposed to be good entertainment. We are here to help to further the good government of this country. Television has been compared with Hansard, with the press, with the public gallery, with sound recordings. Television is not like any of those things. At the receiving end one makes a choice to go out and buy a newspaper to read a debate, or to buy a copy of Hansard to read a debate.
My last point is that I think it is most important that this House should be in total control of every aspect of its proceedings. It has always been in control, and in the case of television it is in danger of losing that control. It would be nice to know in advance in the whip whether or not the cameras are going to be present. It is not for me to suggest what should be in the whips of parties opposite, or other parties, but other noble Lords may think that that would be an agreeable thing to happen.
The cameras are able, as we have seen, to come and go with great ease. The lights are there. I agree with a previous speaker that there is no need to take the lights down, but they can be switched off and switched on again when required. Perhaps that compromise solution might be considered in the future.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I support the motion of my noble friend Lord Soames wholeheartedly. I have met no one outside this House who does not consider the televising of our proceedings to have been a success. It has brought an enormous increase in public interest and esteem to the proceedings of this House. It has even added to the prestige of Parliament as a whole, redressing the balance given by the badly-received sound broadcasting of Question Time in another place.
It has been widely acknowledged that many of the worst fears, which those who were opposed to the experiment had at the outset, have not been realized: the lighting is less harsh, the heat less obtrusive than once expected. Any encouragement given by the presence of the cameras to attention-stealing behaviour by noble Lords seems to have declined since the opening days of the experiment. Personally I think that the net effect of television upon the behaviour of

1033
this House has probably been beneficial, because it has encouraged the House as a whole, from a desire to present a good image of itself, to be stricter with individual Peers who threatened to transgress what the House as a whole thinks to be desirable standards of conduct.
Millions, perhaps tens of millions, now know us through television. The live debates, the two sets of nightly and weekly special programmes developed by ITN as well as the coverage of the investigative work of the Overseas Trade Committee, have attracted audiences which exceeded all expectations. When "Their Lordships' House" was shown late at night the final close-down audience averaged some 20 per cent. above what it had been in an earlier comparable period. As to the news programmes—which is how the really large audiences see us, in items usually of between one and three minutes in length—taking ITN alone, items on House of Lords affairs figured in 56 news programmes during the experimental period compared with the 10 programmes during the whole of 1984. By these means the House of Lords has reached unheard of levels in public awareness and recognition.
Having made this advance, I do not believe that we should now retreat. If we were to vote out the cameras it could be years before they were back, even if they did come back. The House of Commons is unlikely to be in a position to start an experiment, even if it were to decide to do so at the earliest opportunity, until the autumn of next year, given the severer technical problems which I understand there are of televising proceedings in that Chamber. If we keep the cameras the television companies can continue to learn and experiment with different types of programme. I here suggest that the BBC has some catching up to do on ITV which has been markedly more adventurous.
In any case, I do not think we should break the continuity. The televising of our proceedings provides us with a precious assurance against wilful, politically motivated misrepresentation. It is thus a guarantee for our future and, having forged this shield, I do not think that we should put it down now.
Ostensibly we are this evening only deciding whether to allow our proceedings to be televised until we can draw our considered conclusion in January. But in practice our vote this afternoon will be taken as our judgment on our experiment. So an article in last Friday's Financial Times referring to today's debate had the headline,
"Peers to decide if TV trial was an error"—
in other words our vote today would be taken as an indication of whether we approved or disapproved of our experiment. I think that the House of Commons is also likely to see it this way. I find that Members of another place are interested to see how we shall vote on this experiment. How we vote will doubtless be one of the influences on how they will vote themselves. But if they vote as it is expected they will in November, this will be our only chance to influence their decision.
So a vote against by us will be interpreted as our having voted out the cameras, or at least as revealing a very modified rapture, to put it mildly, with the results of our experiment. On the other hand, a vote to
1034
permit the cameras to stay beyond the period originally agreed, and without a change in the conditions originally laid down, would be the strongest indication that we could give that we welcome the televising of our proceedings and judge the experiment to have been a success.
It would not prejudice the decision as to whether we wanted our proceedings to be televised on a permanent basis. I do not think we would ever wish to take that decision without knowing where the other place stood on the subject at the time at which we were to decide. The outlook on this point is likely to be clearer when we debate the matter next year.
I should like to return finally to a point which I made in the debate last November. This House has enjoyed a great advantage from being the only one of the two Houses to have had its proceedings televised during the trial period. This has ensured vastly greater public attention than we would have had otherwise. It has also ensured from the television authorities the most scrupulous care in presenting our proceedings fairly and with due respect, so keen have they been for the experiment to be judged a success, not least because the great prize, the televising of the proceedings of the House of Commons, remains beyond their reach. These conditions still apply and we should continue to take advantage of them. I suggest we should make hay while the sun shines. The time gained can be used for experiments in programme making, which is particulary essential for the day, if it comes, when both Houses will be televised together, whether experimentally or permanently. By then we need to have firmly in place arrangements that will protect us from suffering more than is necessary the consequences of a switch of interests by the television authorities from what goes on in this House to what goes on in another place.
Meanwhile, I think we should continue as we are, for the longer we continue to be televised in these favourable conditions which apply today the more natural and accepted will be the image of this House and its activities to an ever larger section of the population. We need to entrench ourselves as deeply as possible for our own salvation in the minds and hearts of the nation.
A vote today is not only reaffirmation of a belief in the public's right to know what is done in the legislature on its behalf—although for some it will be that; it is also a vote of self-confidence by ourselves in the value of the work of this House and our belief in its ability to stand up to continuing public scrutiny. I hope therefore that the motion of my noble friend Lord Soames will be carried by a convincing majority.
6.18 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, as the last Back-Bencher to speak before the heavyweights of the establishment pronounce, it would be churlish not to voice at least a tribute to the television staff who have been working in very cramped conditions, I understand, in two Portacabins in Black Rod's Garden, which cannot have made their task at all easy. It is common ground, too, that we all appreciate the discreet behaviour of the cameramen in the House.
I see and have heard no good reason why our guests should ask their hosts to be allowed to outstay their

1035
welcome—that is apart from their own desire to build up pressure on your Lordships' House and to try to pre-empt the Select Committee's decision, to say nothing of their desire to maintain pressure on another place.
So, without any difficulty or trouble of conscience, I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton. We have been told, and it is surely the case, that the cameras, their crews and the editorial staff behind the scenes have all been on their best behaviour. Yet one thing that comes out from all quarters of the House, from those who support Lord Soames' Motion and those who support Lord Peyton's amendment, is a degree of anxiety, varied, it is true, from place to place, but a degree of anxiety about editorial control.
It would be madness to allow this opportunity to pass without some friendly but critical observations. First trivialisation has triumphed. We have had snippety snapshots without the sense of the speech being conveyed. The answer to that might be—and perhaps the Select Committee will take this "under advisement", as the Americans say—that, while showing the features and maybe a striking phrase or two from this or that noble Lord, an editorial voice should at the same time give a succinct summary of the speaker's argument which cannot, of course, be encapsulated by the camera.
Shots have not always been fair in party political terms. For example, the film is moved, shall we say, from the Alliance to the Opposition Front Bench, to a rebel Tory Back-Bench speaker without—I say "without" and I quote a particular case—a showing of the Government spokesman in between. There has also been trivialisation in another sense. As is sometimes the case with the media—and I speak having been a newspaperman for some 20 years; I travelled the world for the press, so that I am an ex-media man—I will say that I have seen occasions when the reporter missed the point altogther, usually to the delight of the PR groups stirring the pot. A number of points in my view have been consistently ignored. Unlike another place, the vote here does, in fact, indicate which side has won the argument. That is because the Cross-Benchers are entirely volatile and free of direct party allegiance so they switch from side to side. That is one of the merits of this House; but in six months of the experiment I have not seen that point made.
There is no such thing as an inbuilt Tory majority any longer. The hereditary element, warts and all, is spread all over the House and the Cross-Benches as well and they contribute—perhaps I should say, "we contribute"—a kind of commonsense jury-service element which is rather different from that of the Lobby-fodder politicians. No man ever chose his father. In six months, I have not heard that point made.
This House, for all the flummery and ceremonial beloved of the cameras, is in fact democracy's long-stop. Winston Churchill said many years ago, "The function [of the Lords] is not to govern but to enable the people to govern themselves". We have absolute power to veto any tampering with the "quinquennial Act" so that we are the sole guarantee that elections take place every five years, whatever the majority may
1036
wish in another place. In six months I have not heard that point made, either.
The arguments of the Establishment boil down to this: that television has brought government nearer to the people and that generates sympathy for this House against the day that a majority elsewhere seeks to abolish or at least to castrate it. Neither is valid. Entertaining snippets teach the public nothing, absolutely nothing, about the facts of government or about the great issues.
Should a majority in another place seek to abolish this House, as the election manifestos of the party opposite have twice proposed—one of them said, "Abolish the Lords' veto power"; but that is what it is all about—it would have to do several things. It would need to prolong its own existence more than five years to accomplish it and it would have to flood this place with its placemen. The first would risk the rebuff of the veto and the second would risk the total blockage of Government business. In either case, this House would be news in its own right. In either case, the cameras would come back in a flash even if they had been banished. They would be back because we would be news Therefore, the thought of the cameras being the protection of this place meantime is, I believe irrelevant.
Now is the time when we should ask again—and no doubt my noble friend the Leader of the House will refer to this in his summing up—about costs. They have not been mentioned except tangentially in this debate. Now is the time, I believe, for a pause not least to enable the Select Committee to propose much clearer editorial guidelines if it does recommend that the cameras be allowed in permanently. In that context, I beg your Lordships very seriously and sympathetically to consider the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Peyton.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder if he would answer one question. I did not want to interrupt his speech. He stated during his speech that one of the virtues of this House is that a vote reflects the argument. Has he come across the case of a debate on a Bill in this House in which every speaker except the Government speaker spoke against the Government and then the Government brought in their "dining-room vote" and defeated the argument by people who had never heard any part of that argument? If he has not, I can give him a number of specific instances.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been here as long as I have, he would know many examples not only of such a case but where a Back-Bencher's Motion was proposed, all the speakers backed it and then people trooped in to vote it down. This happens. But the point is that in this House on a matter of most general interest the decision of the voting normally does reflect who won the argument. That is where this place differs greatly in my view from that down the corridor.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in his opening remarks referred to those of us who are speaking at what is known as "below the

1037
line" as the heavyweights of the Establishment. I accept being a heavyweight but I cannot possibly accept being a member of the Establishment. A day or two ago when I first saw this Motion and the amendment on the Order Paper, I said to one of my colleagues, "This will be a narrow debate with a very few speakers". I was wrong in both cases. There have been 25 speakers and it has been a very wide debate. It ought perhaps to have been a narrow one, but in fact we have not only discussed the televising of the House of Lords but included in it the televising of Parliament as a whole. We have also discussed partially, and by one Member only, the questions of violence on the football field, of snooker and of golf.
Perhaps at this stage, if we get back to the Motion on the Order Paper it may be of value. We are not here to discuss whether this House shall be permanently televised. We are simply here to decide whether or not the experiment—and the word "experiment", I remind the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, (although I am inclined to agree with him that it is probably the wrong word) was in fact used in a decision of the House; and the House called it an experiment—should continue.
There has been some criticism of the Select Committee, of which I am a Member, during the debate this afternoon, in that perhaps the Select Committee should have brought a recommendation before the House. The Select Committee has no such authority. The decision was that of the House to conduct an experiment for a six-month period. What could the chairman and the members of the Select Committee have done? Certainly they could not have turned down the letters without bringing them before the House and so they did the only thing possible in this very brief report, with the object of leaving it entirely to the Members of this noble House who have to take the decision.
In November 1984 when we discussed the experiment, I am on record as saying that I doubted very much whether six months was long enough. I said that at the time, and I am still of the opinion, that a further period of experimentation is necessary. On the other hand, the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would suggest that the experiment should end now. He has made that absolutely clear. When I say "now", of course I mean on Wednesday of next week, when the House will rise for the Summer Recess. The amendment suggests that we should discontinue broadcasting entirely until such time as the Select Committee reports to the House, I should think, early in the New Year.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in his amendment expresses the hope—and one does not object to that—that the Select Committee's final report will be available by Christmas. However, I doubt very much whether that will be possible. The committee would find it very difficult indeed to reach that deadline. One has to remember what needs to be done in the very short period between mid-October and Christmas —some nine or 10 weeks—to come to a conclusion, to have a report printed and to have it presented to this House. We could start work immediately, as I hope we shall, but the taking of evidence will take some considerable time. I think perhaps the word "considerable" has been badly chosen because it may
1038
not take all that time but, on the other hand, members of the public are entitled to ask to be heard, as are Members of this House; and they would unquestionably be heard. Also, broadcasting organisations other than the BBC and ITN would wish to give evidence; and so the taking of evidence may take some considerable time, as I have said.
Then there is the question of our own deliberations, and that is not going to be a very easy job. I can assure your Lordships that in deciding who should sit on the Select Committee the House has done an excellent job, in that all possible views are represented there. Therefore any hope of getting a report by Christmas ought to be forgotten at this stage, I think.
Probably the most difficult task which the Committee will have to face up to is the assessing of the actual cost of permanently televising this Chamber. Having reached a figure, whatever it may be—and I am not going to pluck a figure out of the air—the decision then has to be taken as to who pays for it. Whether it should be divided between the broadcasting authorities and public funds or, hopefully, whether it should all come from the broadcasting authorities will not be an easy decision to reach, because at the present moment, so far as the BBC and the independent companies are concerned, they are not in the mood for spending additional money; they are looking for additional revenue. So that is an added problem which we shall have to decide upon, as to who picks up the bill
Many of us, I am sure—and I think we would all agree here—would like to thank the broadcasters of the BBC and ITN for the work they have done during the experiment. Putting it my way, I think that they have put the House of Lords on the map. They have made people interested in the House of Lords who simply knew of it before, but knew no more than that about it. Also they have put it on the map despite its hundreds of years of history, and they have done that in a period of relatively few months. People have been tuning in regularly, not so much to hear individual speakers as to see exactly how the House functions.
I think the coverage of our debates has been fair and completely impartial. Many members of the general public have seen this Chamber in operation as a part—and a part only—of our parliamentary system and they have also seen the beauty of this Chamber in a very short period of months—something like 17 or 18 weeks, in view of the Recesses. During that period more people have seen the Chamber and have heard us deliberating in debate than have been in the Galleries during the centuries that either House of Parliament has existed. That, too, has to be borne in mind. We have created a new interest, and it is one that I hope will remain.
I have heard no complaints at all from Members of this House about the cameras. Earlier this afternoon one speaker referred to the "clicking" of cameras. I am not sure whether or not the cameras are working now but I can hear no "clicking". I think it is perhaps a wrong use of the word. On the other hand, I do accept that some Members have been disturbed to some extent by the intensity of the lighting. It may be that during the parliamentary Recess, whatever our decision today, there may be an opportunity for the

1039
authorities of the House and the broadcasting authorities to get together and see what can be done to ease the lighting, possibly by repositioning or something of that description.
Personally, the intensity of the lighting does not affect me, but I do not like to see the horrible scaffolding which is supporting the lighting. It ought not to be seen as part of this Chamber, and perhaps we could do something about it. Nevertheless we also ought to bear in mind that, with normal lighting and before the television lights came to this Chamber, the standard of lighting here was and is lower than is permitted under the Factory Acts for any factory or indeed for any office.
One knows that the producers of our programmes had to start de novo. Full praise goes to the technicians, the cameramen and the rest, but they are not unused to working in difficult and awkward circumstances. The producers, however, have had no previous experience of a Chamber like this one. It does not of course compare with a party conference: I think we should bear that in mind. So they had to learn their job anew and I think all credit is due to them for what they have done in their brief period of weeks. They have got to know something about our procedures, our traditions and even our courtesies. They have managed to assess and measure the whole of that during this period.
If this Motion is agreed, the experiment will have run over a full parliamentary year. I believe it is important that the viewers then should have the opportunity of seeing and hearing what I regard as the best procedure during any parliamentary year: that is, our discussion in this Chamber (or for that matter in the other Chamber) of the gracious Speech—though not the Speech itself. The discussion that I am referring to goes on for three or four days and we have the most knowledgeable people in this Chamber who speak on defence, on foreign affairs and on the economy. I believe that discussion ought to be televised, and if we pass the amendment, we are going to knock it out. If we carry the Motion it will be included within the period.
In speaking during the debate, I said, as I have mentioned before, that six months was not long enough. I am still of that opinion. There is considerable advantage in maintaining the impetus of the experiment. And we might perhaps remember that it is now almost 20 years since the first closed-circuit television experiment took place in this Chamber. It was a completely closed circuit, when the television cameras operated and we were able to view them outside. I say "almost 20 years"—that is a guess—but I think that it is bound to be that sort of period. It has taken a very long time for us to come this far. I would hope first that the House will permit the experiment to continue and that in fact the decision in the Select Committee's final report will be that the broadcasting authorities are able to bear the greater cost of it. For that and other reasons I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Soames.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, in expressing the view from this Dispatch Box this afternoon on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord
1040
Soames, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I am inevitably expressing a personal view and not an official view. As has been said, the Motion before your Lordships this afternoon is not a Motion on whether the experiment has been a success or not—the debate on that will come later—but a Motion as to whether the experiment should continue for a further period or not.
A number of noble Lords have been tempted to comment on the experiment. I shall try to refrain from doing so, save to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in that I think the experiment has done a great deal of good for this House. The question to which your Lordships are asked to direct yourselves this afternoon is whether the experiment should be continued for a further period or not. The report of the Select Committee contains the text of the correspondence from the BBC and ITN. Neither of these letters in any way indicates that the length and breadth of the experiment have been insufficient for the television companies to come to a considered view of the value which they place on the experiment.
The only reasons put forward for requesting the increase in the length of the experiment appear to be that it would be a pity to halt the momentum while the project is going so well—but that momentum will inevitably come to an end next week in any case when we go into Recess—and that the public enjoy watching extracts of our proceedings. Neither of these reasons seems to me to be adequate for extending the experiment. If the companies had said that the time was inadequate, that they wished to experiment in certain other ways about broadcasting the proceedings, I would have had much more sympathy with their requests.
Indeed, in the letter we have from Independent Television News Limited, Mr. Nicholas comments that:
"various forms of programme outlets have been tried and developed: the open-ended live coverage of major debates; the daily summaries; the extracts in news programmes; the weekly review programmes"
and other items have been used in various regions. In no way do they say in fact that they have not been able to try to do everything they wished to do during the experimental period.
Mr. Milne of the BBC says:
"We have been able to try different kinds of programmes".
The only person who has suggested this afternoon that there were other things which ought to be tried is in fact my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby, who said that there was a certain type of experiment which had not been tried. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked whether it would be helpful if there were a greater amount of material to help the television companies to come to their decision. He quarrelled—if that is the right word—with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on that point.
However, I think the point which has been made is that if one is continuing to gain evidence during the period when the Select Committee is considering these matters one will put the Select Committee in a difficulty of being forced inevitably to continue to rewrite its report again and again as additional information, if there is any, comes forward. Indeed, I think

1041
that it might not be long before somebody demands a report on the extended television period as well as on the original period. I should have thought that the original decision to have an experiment for a finite period and then to make a proper assessment of that experiment before coming to a decision as to whether we would agree to the televising of our proceedings on a permanent basis, was a right one.
I voted for the experiment last November. I believe that the experiment, as I have already said, has been a success. I shall have to see the Select Committee report in due course, but I very probably shall vote to make the televising of our proceedings permanent. But this personal decision will depend on a number of factors, some of which are not known. For this afternoon, however, I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because I believe that that would be in the proper interests of the House.
I should like to say one final thing. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is carried, nobody should interpret this as a vote against televising the proceedings of the House. It will be a vote for the proper conduct of the proceedings of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has suggested that it would be a vote against televising the House. It will not. It will not be a judgment on the experiment. That is not what we have been asked to judge this afternoon. I should be very unhappy if the press come out tomorrow, if the amendment is carried, with headlines, "The Lords throw out TV cameras".
Noble Lords: They will!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: If they come out with that headline it is because of the misguided action of pressurising your Lordships to take a decision on this matter this afternoon. I believe that that is the proper decision for your Lordships to take. I hope very much that permanent televising of this House will come. But if the House is to conduct its proceedings properly I believe that we should now move forward to the Select Committee meeting, taking evidence, and producing a report for your Lordships' consideration. I should say, as I started by saying, that I of course am expressing personal views.
6.48 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I am acutely conscious that one of my main tasks as Leader of your Lordships' House is to sense its mood. I sense the mood of this House that it wishes to come to a decision now after a long and very interesting debate. I shall therefore not be tempted into commenting on the various points that have been made by noble Lords on the issue. Some noble Lords have tempted me very greatly indeed and I shall, uncharacteristically, hold myself back from making any comments at all on some of the points which have been made with which I happen personally profoundly to disagree. I shall not do so—it is very difficult but that is what I must do.
I therefore make only one point on the narrow issue that arises. It is a narrow issue and must remain so. We are deciding whether this House should continue the television experiment for the few months involved
1042
before we have the opportunity to consider the further report from the Select Committee. Many of the speeches have ranged wider than that, but that is the Motion, and indeed the amendment, that is before us.
I must make myself quite clear. No one will be surprised at this. My personal position has always been that I have wished to see the televising of Parliament. Since I left another place I have been very careful never to express a view about televising another place, for two very good reasons. I realise that my influence in another place—if it ever was at all great—has gone to absolute zero. I therefore would not wish to try to persuade them on my line of thought because they would almost certainly reject it, and immediately so. The other reason is that it is not my business because it is their business. It is not the business of this House to tell another place what they should or should not do.
Since I left the other place I have longed frequently to tell them what I think they should and should not do—and sometimes have done so, privately or semi-privately. But I shall not do so today. I personally support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Soames and I am opposed to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton. On that basis, perhaps I should come to one or two of the main points which concern me as Leader of your Lordships' House and then say no more.
First, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in thanking all those who have contributed to the experiment—the cameramen and all the people who have been dealing with it. I believe that we owe them a considerable debt of gratitude and, whatever view your Lordships may take on televising this House, I hope you will join me in feeling that that is correct.
I now turn to the question of costs. My noble friend Lady Macleod asked me about continuing costs. Modest costs on installation were met by the PSA. Those, having been paid once, will not now recur. The main running costs have been met by the broadcasters, and if we continue during the period afterwards until such time as the Select Committee reports, they will continue to be paid by the broadcasters. I am advised that the only continuing costs to public funds will indeed be very small—for example, the extra cost of electricity in your Lordships' House with the television experiment on compared with the cost with the television experiment off. I do not believe that there will be any other continuing costs.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale asked me about the long-term costs. I think it must be very clear that this is a matter which, if your Lordships decide—I shall come to the means of that decision later—to continue with a permanent televising, would have to be settled at that time. I doubt whether they can be wholly settled by the Select Committee in their report on the experiment. There is a very powerful reason for what I am saying which I must repeat very firmly to your Lordships' House as I did at the time of the original debate. I have absolutely no authority to commit public funds in any way at all at this stage until such time as the decision is taken on the permanent televising of this House. If it were to be taken and the question of public funds arose, that would be another matter which I should have to

1043
pursue with my colleagues. I must emphasise once again that I have no authority so far as public funds are concerned.
I turn now to the arrangements for debates which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. The television authorities decide when the cameras are coming in. I must make it perfectly clear that no debates have been arranged in response to the the television authorities. Indeed, when the usual channels set up the debates in advance they have no idea whether or not the cameras are coming in. That can be confirmed not only from one side but from all sides of the usual channels. Perhaps I may say something else to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. The fact is that during the summer, whether your Lordships have liked it or not, much of our time has been inevitably occupied on the Local Government Bill, for which I notice that the cameras came in most of the time. That meant that any room for manoeuvre through the usual channels on ordinary debates was very limited indeed in view of the number of days—I make no complaint of this—on which your Lordships decided to continue on the Local Government Bill. I make complaint about that, but not to your Lordships.
On the point of my noble friend Lord Cross about notice in the Whip, I think personally—this is purely a personal view—that would be undesirable because it might encourage some noble Lords to attend that day when they were not otherwise coming and possibly behave differently. I do not think that they would but it might encourage them to do so, and I do not think that they should be given such encouragement. They should come if they wish to come. Anyway, even if we wanted to do that it would be quite impossible for us because the broadcasters do not have to give a period of notice, and frequently they make their decision as late as the day before the broadcast.
There is only one other point I should make in answer to what was said because there has been some confusion about it. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said that my noble friend Lord Soames was wrong about the present lighting having to come down. The position is quite simple. Although extra lighting will be needed for the State Opening it is not true that the existing lights need to come down on that account. Therefore, if today the Motion were passed, and we were to continue with the experiment, the existing lights could, as I understand it—and I have taken advice on this aspect—be left in position. The question of the State Opening therefore would not change that situation.
I turn finally to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton. My noble friend made it quite obvious that it is a clear negative to the Motion that is being proposed with the addendum about the need for the Select Committee to complete their report by Christmas. I share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, about that. I think that there may be a difficulty which we cannot foresee in the deliberations of the committee. When my noble friend Lord Peyton asks for a full and considered report, I am sure that that is what he really wants. If in fact the Select
1044
Committee felt constrained in any way by the timetable, I hope that they would be allowed to go on longer and that my noble friend would not press the exact time too strongly. I hope that it will be possible to achieve it in that time but it just might not be if unforeseen difficulties arose.
I have only one other point to make. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked me about any decision after the Select Committee had reported. I can confirm that at that time there will be an opportunity for a full day's debate in your Lordships' House before any decision is taken. That will be the moment when we in this House will be taking the decision whether or not to continue permanently with television. That is the moment when that decision will have to be made. The decision today is the narrower one that is set out in the Motion.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am most grateful to all your Lordships who took part in the debate. I feel that I should perhaps explain to your Lordships why I put down the Motion. I seemed to me necessary for a Motion to be put down by a Back-Bench Member of your Lordships' House so that it could be debated without any question of whips or authority of any character being imposed upon your Lordships; and also because if something like this had not happend the Motion which was passed some time back by your Lordships for the experiment to last six months would have been invoked and it would all have come to an end today.
It seemed to me that there was—to put it no higher than this—a prima facie case that the experiment had been sufficiently successful to make it (I make no apology for the word), a pity to stop it in its tracks until the House had been able to consider the full and definitive report of the Select Committee. The main argument that was repeated over and over again by those who are opposed to this concept was that the House had taken the decision that it should be an experiment for six months, a decision taken roughly six months ago, and that therefore it was immutable and should not be changed.
I do not accept that view. I put it to your Lordships that it is for your Lordships' House to decide. Greater dangers would be involved in stopping it and in losing a considerable audience which has been built up of those who wish to watch your Lordships' House in action than in allowing it to go on for these extra few months.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I suspect that if I were to say anything at great length I would only be in danger of alienating support for the amendment which stands in my name. I thank those noble Lords who have been good enough to support it in their speeches, and I formally beg to move.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 135.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bauer, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Margadale, L.

Beloff, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Blyton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monson, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nicol, B.

Colville of Colross, V.

Northesk, E.

Cross, V.

Oram, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Davies of Leek, L.

Pender, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rugby, L.

Galpern, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Jeger, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Whaddon, L.

Lewin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Grey, E.

Amherst, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Attlee, E.

Hampton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Banks, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Barnett, L.

Hayter, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Belstead, L.

Heycock, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hill of Luton, L.

Bethell, L.

Holderness, L.

Blake, L.

Hooson, L.

Boardman, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ingrow, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Kennet, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Caithness, E.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Caradon, L.

Kimball, L.

Cathcart, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Colwyn, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cox, B.

Listowel, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Lockwood, B.

David B.

Long, V.

Davidson, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Diamond, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Dilhorne, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Elliott of Harwood, B.

McNair, L.

Elton, L.

Marley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ennals, L.

Mayhew, L.

Fortescue, E.

Meston, L.

Gainford, L.

Mishcon, L.

Glanusk, L.

Mottistone, L.

Glenamara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Greenway, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Gregson, L.

Norfolk, D.

1046

Norwich, Bp.

Soames, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Somers, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stamp, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Stedman, B.

Rea, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Reay, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Reigate, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Renton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Rochester, L.

Swinfen, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Swinton, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

St. Davids, V.

Teviot, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thorneycroft, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Tordoff, L.

Seear, B.

Tranmire, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Shackleton, L.

Underhill, L.

Shannon, E.

Walston, L.

Sharples, B.

White, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Shepherd, L.

Winstanley, L. [Teller.]

Sherfield, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
7.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act,

Social Security Act,

Shetland Islands Council (Omnibus Services) Order Confirmation Act,

Scarborough Borough Council Act,

Durham City Council Act,

British Railways (Trowse Bridge) Act.

Oil and Pipelines Bill
7.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill proposes important changes to the structure and extent of public sector involvement in the oil industry. It may be helpful if I describe briefly what has happened over the past year. Last July, prices in the spot market fell sharply. This fall appeared to be based on speculative pressures. The British National Oil Corporation accordingly, and correctly, maintained its prices. If BNOC had reduced its prices at that time, the speculative pressures would have been confirmed and reinforced; that could have risked triggering off a competitive downward spiral of term prices.
In October last year BNOC did reduce its term prices. Downward pressures on spot prices continued, however, and BNOC found that it could not maintain sufficient customers on term contracts. So the corporation found itself caught in a trap. By holding its term prices it was forced to sell oil on the spot market and incur losses. If, on the other hand, it had reduced

1047
its prices, it risked enhancing the speculative downward pressures.
This then was the background to the Minister of State for Energy's announcement on 13th March. In the past BNOC had possessed a temporary ability to contribute to stability in the market through the timing and manner in which it proposed prices for the considerable volumes of United Kingdom continental shelf crude which it sold on term contracts. But it had now lost that ability because of the massive growth of spot and spot-related sales. Indeed, it could now change its prices only at the risk of destabilising the oil market by setting off a cycle of speculation and competitive price-cutting.
This Bill puts in place an appropriate structure for those parts of BNOC's activities which need to remain in the public sector. BNOC's principal activity was the trading of participation oil. Now that this activity is not going to be continued, it is appropriate that a much smaller body with more limited powers is established to carry out the residual functions. Some BNOC staff have already moved off to other jobs; more will do so during the next few months. The board of BNOC have provided a package of compensation in line with the benefits paid by oil companies when they have made staff redundant. The Government's decision to abolish the corporation should not be regarded in any sense as a reflection on the calibre of BNOC's staff.
When this Bill was considered in another place, a number of debates took place about how the national interest in securing our oil supplies at a time of shortage will be preserved. In a minor crisis our own stocks will be sufficient to cover any deficit until the participation agreements have been reactiviated, should that be necessary. In any event, since our consumers will need oil products rather than crude, the important defence will be the assurances which the Government have obtained from refining companies. In a major crisis, the IEA oil sharing arrangements and, if appropriate, our powers under the Energy Act 1976 would come into play. I am content that the abolition of BNOC will in no way diminish the country's security of supply.
The course of the oil market since the announcement of BNOC's abolition on 13th March has reinforced the correctness of our judgment that it was inadvisable and certainly unnecessary for a public sector body to trade very substantial volumes of United Kingdom continental shelf crude when world production capacity is well in excess of world demand.
The Government envisage that the new Oil and Pipelines Agency will have three principal functions. The first of these is the continuation of BNOC's role as managing agent of the Government's pipeline and storage system. Currently the system consists of over 1,000 miles of pipelines and a number of storage installations. Commercial use of the system has expanded steadily over recent years, and the system now has an important role for both civil and military purposes. The Government will be looking to the agency to explore how additional commercial revenues could be generated.
The agency's second function is to be responsible for the disposal of royalty in kind oil. At present some
1048
260,000 barrels a day of royalty in kind oil is lifted. The agency's roles, both in managing the Government pipeline and storage system and in disposing of royalty oil, will be governed by contractual arrangements between it and the Secretary of State for Energy.
The agency's third activity will be to maintain in existence the rights and obligations under the participation agreements, so that it could lift petroleum under these agreements should that ever be necessary. Consent to exercise options will only be given by the Government if such an exercise was finally justified by an existing or imminent threat to the security of the nation's oil supplies.
The agency will have powers to trade in petroleum on its own account, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. That consent will be given only as necessary to maximise the proceeds from the disposal of royalty in kind. The agency would also need to be able to trade effectively should the participation agreements ever be reactiviated. BNOC has already shed all its pure participation supplies in co-operation with the licensees, and also shed a good part of its supplies under third party contracts. BNOC is currently trading only one-tenth of the volumes which it was handling before the abolition of the corporation was announced. The agency will not continue BNOC's role in trading liquid petroleum gases. This LPG trading can now be handled perfectly adequately by the private sector.
My right honourable friend has announced that, subject to the passage of this Bill, he intends to appoint Mr. George Dunkerley as part-time chairman of the agency when it is established. Mr. Dunkerley will shortly be retiring from his present position as deputy senior partner of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company in the United Kingdom. We intend to appoint Mr. Kenneth Vaughan as full-time Chief Executive of the agency. Mr. Vaughan joined BNOC in 1978 after working for British Petroleum and the Kuwait National Petroleum Company; recently he has been BNOC's general manager with responsibility for managing the Government pipeline and storage system and for LPG trading. We also intend to appoint as a part-time member Mr. Owen Heald, who has recently retired as a director of Shell UK Ltd. He has wide experience in trading and marketing of crude oil and in pipeline operations.
Finally, let me briefly describe the provisions which the Bill contains. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 establish the Oil and Pipelines Agency and provide for it to have between three and five members, to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Clause 2 sets out the continuing functions of the agency, which I have already described. Clause 3 and Schedule 2 provide for all BNOC's property rights and liabilities to be transferred to the agency on an appointed day, the transfer date. Clause 3 also contains powers for BNOC to be subsequently dissolved. Clause 4 places an obligation on the agency to dispose of, on the best terms reasonably obtainable, any property rights or liabilities which are transferred to it from BNOC but which are not required for its continuing functions. Clause 5 and Schedule 3 give the agency a duty to comply with any general or specific directions given by the Secretary of State, and also contain financial provisions which will govern the agency's activities.

1049
The remaining clauses and schedules are supplemental.
By March of this year, BNOC's role in trading participation oil had gathered the potential for introducing instability into the oil market. BNOC, having to face the future without its traditional trading pattern of term contracts, had been forced to become a heavy seller on the spot market. The Government and many outside commentators recognised that it was not good enough to let things carry on as they had done, and that it was imperative in the national interest to tackle the problems created by the changing structure of the oil market, even though that involved some difficult decisions.
The Bill before us is the result. It removes what, if this had remained, would have proved to be unnecessary and undesirable state intervention in the oil market. My Lords, I warmly commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
7.22 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, for explaining concisely and succinctly the Bill which is now before us. He did so very briefly indeed and I suppose that should commend itself to the House, bearing in mind that the Bill came before your Lordships at five minutes past seven rather than at three o'clock this afternoon. Quite clearly the House felt that a debate on the televising of the proceedings of the House was more important than a major Bill of this sort. That is something which I very much regret and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, will join me in that regret.
Lord Gray of Contin: The cameras have gone away.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is right, my Lords, the cameras are away. We now know the degree of importance and the priorities which the television media give to the work of this House; but that perhaps is something for another day.
I am afraid I cannot be as brief as the noble Lord. I think I shall take rather longer than he did; but, of course, he has two bites of the cherry and I only have one. No doubt he will wish to reply to what I and other noble Lords have to say in the debate. I must say that when the announcement abolishing BNOC was made on 13th March, I said in your Lordships' House that I was profoundly shocked. That was not mere party-political rhetoric. I meant it very sincerely indeed. There had been no previous warning about any possibility that BNOC was to be wound up. True, there had been concern expressed about so-called losses—and I say that advisedly—made by BNOC as a result of their intervention at the Government's behest in the oil price markets, but nobody really believed that as a result of these losses BNOC would be wound up, and I very much regret that, under this Bill, it is to be wound up. Indeed, there was every expectation following the Minister of State's speech in the House of Commons on 18th December that BNOC was held in
1050
favourable regard by the Government, and that the Government's view was that it should continue its operations without radical alteration.
The noble Lord will remember the speech of his right honourable friend the Minister of State on the 18th December, which was reported in col. 230 of the Official Report of the House of Commons, when he said:
"Simply because we transparently have a surplus, we should not dismiss the argument about security of supply. We should also bear it in mind that security of supplying is of interest to other consuming countries".
He also went on to say:
"We must ensure that the United Kingdom continental shelf and the price that Britain secures for oil in international markets is not entirely under the control of international integrated companies. We must also ensure that there are some arms length sales at transparent prices. That is an important function which BNOC performs in setting the reference price".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/84; col. 230.]
So certainly on 18th December 1984 the Government saw a continuing and important role for BNOC in matters of security of supply and the reference price for taxation purposes.
What then are we to make of the Government's apparent change of heart in only three short months? We can only conclude that they were playing for time on 18th December and that they knew all along that their real intention was to abolish BNOC in their own good time. In my view the Government's intention right from the start was to dismantle BNOC in two stages. The first stage took place in 1982 through the Oil and Gas Enterprise Act when exploration and production was removed from BNOC and Britoil, a private organisation, was set up. We all know what a debacle that was, and still is indeed. Tory dogma took over from sound commonsense and good business acumen, and thereby destroyed a successful, efficient and profitable corporation managed by throughly competent staff who were dedicated not to private profit but to the interests of the British people.
BNOC was then respected throughout the oil industry and indeed acted as the Government's eyes and ears in the North Sea, thus enabling them to plan for the future and to ensure that the interests of the British nation were not set aside by the multinational oil companies and their desire to maximise profits which were to be repatriated to foreign lands.
In this Bill we have the second stage which winds up BNOC completely. Apart from its role in the security of supply and reference prices, BNOC played a significant role in offering a commercial service to small, independent oil companies which had small amounts of oil in the region of between 8,000 and 10,000 barrels a day. They trusted BNOC and expected a decent deal from them. My Lords, what is to become of them now? The noble Lord did not mention them during his speech. Are they to be left completely at the mercy of the big fish, and is a Conservative Government who are constantly prating on about their concern for the small man to give them no help at all? Is the noble Lord really satisfied that the major oil companies will treat the small boys with the same fairness and consideration as BNOC did? I am sure that in his heart of hearts he cannot be satisfied and I should like him to elaborate on this aspect when he replies.

1051
I should also like to refer briefly to the oil reference price and the considerable help that BNOC has been to the Inland Revenue in ensuring that tax losses are not incurred. The Minister of State himself recognised that BNOC has been useful as a reference point in fixing prices, not in arm's length arrangements but in a situation where artificial pricing is designed not to benefit the Inland Revenue but the oil companies themselves. The fact that BNOC is trading on a massive scale is bound to be of considerable benefit to the oil taxation office and that benefit will be lost when BNOC is wound up. We are not here talking about small sums of money that might be lost to the Inland Revenue. We are talking about perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds. If the price of oil is reduced by 1 per cent, £150 million is lost to the Exchequer, and this is a serious matter. Perhaps we can be told what arrangements are to be made to safeguard the position of the Exchequer on the demise of BNOC.
I now want to return to the most important matter of security of supply. I would remind the House again that on 18th December last year (in col 230 of the Official Report, Commons) the Minister of State made the strongest case for retaining BNOC on the basis of its role in achieving secure supplies of oil. In my view what he said then is just as valid today. Because he is able to perform a volte face with complete indifference to his reputation, he should not expect others to follow suit.
I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that although the oil supply position at present is very easy, the position in the future could—indeed, is likely to—be transformed. In the short term prices may very well fall still further, but in the long run they are bound to rise significantly in real terms. Indeed, speaking after the International Energy Agency meeting in Paris, the Minister of State recognised that there would be an energy shortage in the 1990s. Mr. Buchanan-Smith said:
"I believe IEA warnings to be very timely: most projections of the world supply/demand picture indicate a tightening of the world energy market in the 1990s. We have a well developed flexible set of plans for dealing with energy supply disruption and are ready to join with other IEA countries in taking any necessary co-ordinated action".
In his statement, he says that Britain has, "a well developed flexible set of plans for dealing with energy supply disruption", but we have not. Indeed, by this Bill we are ditching the best safeguard for security of supply in a shortage. All the Minister really has to offer is a set of vague assurances from the big oil companies, and I shall return to those so-called assurances shortly.
But of course as well as the long-term there are the short-term difficulties to be faced. To begin with the downward pressure on oil prices persists and an end of the Iraq-Iran war could herald a complete collapse in oil prices. What that would do for our economy and the Exchequer I shudder to think. The Government have certainly not prepared for such an eventuality. Indeed, they have dissipated tens of billions of pounds in oil revenues in paying unemployment money to 3¼ million people, and in the process have allowed our manufacturing industry to decline to a dangerously low level. Furthermore, from next year our exportable surplus will decline and in the 1990s, which the Minister predicts will be an era of energy shortage, oil
1052
production in the North Sea will be on a steep decline due to the Government's failure to adopt a depletion policy which would have extended the oil plateau over a very much longer period and to the benefit of this country.
No doubt the Minister will contend that BNOC can have no influence on world oil prices, but that was never its primary purpose. Indeed, on pricing, BNOC was acting under Government orders, and paper losses, if there were any losses at all, arose from decisions of Ministers and not of BNOC. But, as I have said, pricing is not the real concern. We are talking about security of supply and the undermining of that security through the ending of participation agreements. We shall lose around 600,000 barrels a day of participation oil by this Bill and thus lose a powerful weapon in any shortage. Furthermore, the state will lose trading expertise and will no longer serve, through BNOC, on the technical and operational committees in the North Sea.
At present, the state, through BNOC, is involved in the detailed decisions of lifting, transporting and the destination of oil. Henceforth we shall be at the mercy of the big oil companies whose prime interest is not the British state but the maximisation of profit. That is not to criticise the big oil companies. It is their role to maximise profits; that is what they are there for. But I criticise the Government for their neglect of the interests of the British people and the sacrifice of those interests on the altar of Tory Party doctrine.
The noble Lord opposite will no doubt protest that the participation agreements can be reactivated on the basis of six months' and twelve months' notice periods. A fat lot of good that will do! By their very nature crises erupt at a moment's notice and can subside just as quickly. While the Minister is fluttering his hands and reactivating his participation agreements, the crisis will have come and gone, probably leaving the British economy in ruins behind it. Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned, will look like a saint compared with the Minister of State scribbling reactivation agreements while the country's economy collapses around him.
But of course the Government's second line of defence is that they have assurances from the oil companies. What sort of assurances they are we do not know; the Government refuse to give Parliament any details. Are they assurances by way of formal agreement, are they letters of intent between the chairmen of oil companies and Ministers, or are the real assurances made through the old boy network in London clubs or on prestigious golf courses? We do not know because the Minister will not tell us. Parliament is to be kept in the dark about Britain's oil supplies in an emergency because Ministers are too coy to reveal the dubious nature of those assurances.
Some idea of the nature of those assurances was given
by the Minister of State at Second Reading in another place. He said that they were informal—informal, mind you, when so much is at stake! What on earth are the Government thinking about to subject vital national interests to informal arrangements? They were elected to safeguard Britain's national interests and not to subordinate them to informal assurances which when the crunch

1053
comes will not be worth a light because they cannot be enforced. The Minister of State has still not told the country the nature or the extent of those informal arrangements. He was pressed at the Third Reading in another place following the article in last Monday's Financial Times which gave some insight into the nature of the oil companies' assurances. As the noble Lord will know, the Financial Times report referred to a letter from a Mr. David Simon, head of BP's refining and marketing division, to an under-secretary at the Department of Energy.
The letter does not even have the status of a communication between the chairman of the company and the Secretary of State. According to this letter, BP agrees in the event of an emergency to keep United Kingdom customers supplied in accordance with the relevant contracts and established business. But BP is prepared to make that affirmation only provided that there are no legal or governmental constraints on its ability to raise prices.
Frankly, those assurances are worth very little. We cannot know whether they would be adequate in times of crisis the nature of which we certainly have little idea of at the present time. They are certainly no substitute for the real and positive influence that BNOC would have in a crisis; and at what price are those so-called assurances? There shall be no constraint on prices. It is incredible that the Government can be satisfied with such assurances, which I can describe only as impertinent.
But I wish to be fair to the Government. As the noble Lord knows, I always try to be fair to the Government. This letter from BP to an undersecretary was dated November 1983, 21 months ago. I think that the Government can help us this evening by saying whether there have been further letters at a higher level and more significant for the protection of our oil supplies in an emergency. Has the Secretary of State rejected the dictatorial demand that he should not intervene on prices if he believes that it is in the national interest to do so?
I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will not shelter behind the ludicrous and undemocratic charade of commercial confidentiality as his right honourable friend the Minister of State did in another place on 15th July. That simply will not do. We are not talking here about simple commercial transactions; we are talking about the nation's lifeblood in time of emergency. It is an insult to Parliament and to the British people that a Minister should seek to deny them information to which they are entitled, on the basis of commercial confidentiality. I ask the noble Lord to come clean on this matter and to tell us tonight the nature of the oil companies' assurances, whether such assurances will be legally binding and whether the Government have told the oil companies in no uncertain terms that they are not prepared to accept the assurances on a conditional basis. If the noble Lord is not prepared to give this information to the House, I can conclude only that the Government are scared of revealing yet another scandal to add to the already big heap that has accumulated since they came to office.
The Bill before us is an extremely important one. The smallness of the numbers participating in the
1054
debate I believe arises from the complicated nature of the issue and the oil industry itself. There is much more that I could have said, much more detail that I could have explored tonight. However that would have been wearisome and I believe, at this stage of the Bill, unproductive.
However, before I sit down I wish to make it absolutely clear that the Labour Party believes that this is a bad Bill in that it loosens the Government's control of a vital part of our economy and in a most cavalier way throws away its vital weapon of securing Britain's oil supplies, particularly in emergencies. The fact is that BNOC has a vital role to play in securing our oil supplies, and the Government, in abandoning such an instrument, are, in the Labour Party's view, acting irresponsibly and without proper care for the vital interests of the people they were elected to serve.
It is inconceivable that a future Labour Government would leave the people of this country unprotected and continue to allow the fate of our oil supplies to rest entirely in the hands of foreign multinational companies. I feel sure that, after the next election and the formation of a Labour Government, we shall return to this matter.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord the Minister will not think it too amiss of me if at the outset of my remarks I comment that I was rather surprised at the complacency with which he introduced this important Bill. In his opening, he referred to the measures replacing BNOC as "appropriate". He used the word "appropriate" twice and he almost left his speech at that stage. I must say that it seemed to me that the speech of the noble Lord the Minister begged as many questions as it answered on these vital matters of security.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, as I feel that I ought to from these Benches, and support to some extent what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has said, that this Bill is concerned with measures for securing the future supplies of forms of energy which are at the very heart of our national welfare, on which our standard of living depends, and on which our national defence, the performance of our industry, transport, water supply and so on are so heavily dependent.
The Minister's speech was in great contrast to the general view expressed at a meeting which was held a couple of weeks ago in your Lordships' House when the director-general of the International Energy Agency, Frau Delga Steeg, from Paris, who no doubt is well known to the Minister, spoke of the work of that agency to the Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies, of which I have the honour of being a founder member and still a deputy chairman.
Speaker after speaker at that meeting, especially those from industry, emphasised the vital importance of adequate procedures for securing supplies of energy at all times and deprecated that so many countries, including the United Kingdom and other EC countries, had not yet formulated a coherent energy policy to this end. Indeed, one industrialist rather dramatically said, as I recall, that had the countries been meeting at the present time to form the European

1055
Economic Community the basic question upon which they would have concentrated would have been a common energy policy rather than a common agricultural policy, a subject which is at present dominating EC discussions. Another even suggested, on this question of having an energy policy, that so vital were energy considerations that there should be set up in the defence field an energy North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to supplement the present NATO emphasis on arms control.
I agree that the subject with which we are dealing is of immense complexity and that forecast after forecast over the past few years by experts has been found to be wrong. The Minister, who has such a distinguished experience of energy matters in the other place as well as in your Lordships' House, was perhaps right to be brief and cautious and not to venture into details and forecasts. He may have adopted the same view as did Sir Frederick Tombs, the chairman of Rolls-Royce, when he addressed the Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies a few weeks ago. He said that his main qualification for addressing the group appeared to be that he was an experienced energy practitioner who, for many years, had made his share of wrong energy forecasts.
I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in his interesting and cogent analysis of the situation leading up to the sudden abolition of the BNOC in its present form. I agree with much of what he said. I wish merely to raise a number of points relating to this Bill which I feel require further clarification and perhaps form the basis for amendments.
The main reason for this Bill is that the Government eventually formed the view that there have been important market changes which now prevent BNOC in its present form from making a substantial contribution to the stability of oil markets in the short term. That is their forecast. I agree of course that there have been major changes in the structure of the oil market away from term contracts and towards spot and similar short-term contracts. In these circumstances I think there was a prima facie view that little advantage remained in retaining a public sector body such as BNOC to operate on its present basis. So far as I am concerned this evening, the question arises as to the adequacy of the new arrangements in this Bill.
I should first like to ask the Minister whether he is able to give any indication of the scope of discussions that the Government have had or may have had with OPEC, with the OECD and perhaps with the EC before arriving at a decision to modify so drastically the constitution of the BNOC. I mentioned our recent meeting with the director-general of the International Energy Agency. She was very careful to say that it was not the place of the agency to dictate to governments what should be done in their crises. I am afraid I did my best to tempt her to make comments on the action of the Government, but she quite properly resisted my lures in that direction.
Of course that was understandable since the function of the International Energy Agency, so far as I understand its operation, is directed to dealing with dramatic changes, with shortfalls of the order of 7 per cent. At the meeting with Frau Steeg some doubt was expressed by industrialists as to whether the
1056
mechanism laid down by the agency could be rapidly triggered to deal with sudden shortfalls of this order. However, I understand that this Bill is concerned with times when less severe market disruption may occur.
The next point I wish to raise is: what is to be the position of the small oil companies as a result of the Bill? Hitherto, these small oil companies dealing usually with less than 15,000 barrels a day relied heavily upon the BNOC to dispose of this oil. Now it seems that such small businesses will be at the mercy of the large oil companies and will probably go to the wall. That a Government that have expressed publicly so much general support for small businesses should apparently sacrifice the small oil businesses in this way passes my comprehension.
The next matter to which I wish to draw attention relates to the adequacy of the safeguards that the Government propose to rely upon by retaining the custody of participation agreements. I appreciate the powers that the Government possess under the Energy Act 1976 in the case of declared national emergencies. It can also be said, I suppose, with a considerable amount of fairness, that substantial security of supply of oil in an international emergency will be achieved because pipelines from so many offshore installations and platforms come direct into the United Kingdom and do not go anywhere else.
The present arrangements relating to participation agreements with large oil companies, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, indicated, do not seem to me to have adequate legal force, if any legal force at all. Indeed, the BNOC, with its control of about 800,000 barrels of North Sea oil, represented prima facie one of the vital means of ensuring power supplies in times of shortage. This is being replaced by a series of supply assurances from the major oil companies particularly those with refining capacity in the United Kingdom. I would also like to have more details of the character of these assurances.
The noble Lord has spoken at length on this matter. The arrangements of these participation agreements were referred to in the other place as being informal. I do not know whether these assurances may not be described as gentlemen's agreements. As a lawyer, specialising in intellectual property and commercial matters, I have always had a horror of so-called gentlemen's agreements. They always lead to trouble when a dispute situation arises.
There are other matters that I may be developing at Committee stage, There is the scope, for instance, of Clause 2 which sets out the agency's general functions and objectives. Again, under Clause 3, can the Minister say—I do not expect him to answer tonight but at some other time we shall be discussing this again—whether the properties and liabilities to be transferred will include any form of intellectual property rights and contracts involving third parties in this country and abroad? That question could give rise to serious commerical matters.
There is also the question of why the Government do not propose to trade in liquid petroleum gas. This is, I understand, a profitable market. No doubt the answer will be, and will continue to be, the answer that the Minister gave today—that it is better to leave liquid petroleum gas to be operated by industry. I

1057
should like to ask what will be the effect on the arrangements in the Bill if the Government proceed with their plans to privatise the British Gas Corporation. This privatisation could expand vastly the demand for gas particularly in the United Kingdom and northern Europe and create conditions in which supply of, and demand for, energy could be in hopeless disequlibrium.
Some clarification also appears to be required relating to the problems faced by the staff of BNOC whose careers have been so abruptly disrupted by the Government's sudden decision to abolish the BNOC in its present form. I join the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in taking this opportunity to praise the staff for their past work.
There is, again, the question of the power to dispose of royalty in kind. I could not understand what the noble Lord, the Minister, had to say about this question of the disposal of royality in kind. No doubt, we shall hear about this at a later stage. Other matters have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, with which I agree and concerning which it is not now necessary for me to take up the time of your Lordships.
If I may say so, what we have heard so far from the noble Lord, the Minister, has been less than satisfactory. His assurances do not seem to me sufficiently specific and may not be adequate when a market crisis arises. It seems to me that much of the reorganisation contemplated by the Bill may be directed largely to producing revenue to sustain the Government's economic strategy. I should like to urge the Government to take this opportunity now to turn their attention to developing a comprehensive energy policy for the continued management of the country's energy resources so vital to national welfare.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, as joint founder with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, of the Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies, perhaps I may be permitted to comment on the meeting with Frau Steeg, director general of IEA, to which he referred. She pointed out quite clearly and publicly that no country was seeking, preparing to seek, or proposed to seek, intervention in the free oil market and no country thought that was worthwhile or profitable while prices were falling. When the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, with his great exposure to energy problems, talked in a rather glib, and I might even say liberal, way about EC energy policy, he has perhaps yet to realise that that is grounded on the wide opposition of interest between countries that produce energy and those that are principally consumers.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I could not help feeling, as he proceeded, that it was a pity that the cameras had gone. We have had a great performance, a great rhodomontade. We were told that Tory dogma had taken the place of British interests in the Government's consideration and that BNOC was widely respected by the oil industry. Well, I think that it was at one stage. But that wide respect has gradually diminished. We were told of the great dangers to the United Kingdom Exchequer of a fall in
1058
price. But any suggestion that BNOC could now affect the oil price has really been killed by events.
We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, if I have got him right—he spoke rather quickly and my shorthand is rather rusty—that we were ditching our defences against an oil price collapse. Finally, he said that we were fiddling while Rome burns. I was only sorry that he did not repeat his great phrase on 13th March when the Statement was made in this House. The noble Lord said at the time that this was,
"another example of this Government's centralist, corporatist attitude. I thought that Stalin was dead, but he seems in tact to have been revived, resuscitated, and brought back to life by this Government."—[Official Report, 13/3/85; col. 188.]
That is splendid stuff. It is a great pity that the cameras missed it.
The fact is that all this arises from a structural change in the world oil market partly influenced by OPEC's own internal difficulties and partly also by the OPEC countries' treatment of foreign oil companies. Arising from both, there has been a distintegration of the vertical supply system as the multinationals share of oil production has shrunk, believe it or not, from more than 70 per cent. to less than 20 per cent. of the world supply. As this has happened, spot transactions have come to account for nearly half of the some 45 million barrels a day of non-Communist oil trade as term and barter contract terms have shrunk altogether. Finally, a lively futures market as arisen as a result. That was the context in whch BNOC traded about 1.3 million barrels of oil a day, which amounted to about 5 per cent., of the total of spot transactions.
As emerged from the proceedings of the Select Committee in another place last December, such a small proportion might, as the Minister of State, Mr. Buchanan-Smith, said help to "smooth out" volatilities in the price pattern. However events have shown that it certainly could not stem a serious price fall even by operations on that scale at the margin. Of course, BNOC suffered one great disability in facing a falling market. It had no storage facilities and therefore could not buy and hold. The BNOC was indeed a shrewd trader while spot prices were rising due to OPEC, on the one hand, and the Gulf War, on the other hand. But, as I have said, in a falling market BNOC was compelled to trail behind, unsupported by storage facilities.
The effect of the slide in price is beginning to be felt everywhere and not so much in trading as in exploration. We are beginning to see the effects on the continental shelf. The drilling rate is pretty steady in the Norwegian, Dutch and German parts of the shelf and is even moving up in the Irish, Danish and French sections, and the number of rigs in the North Sea overall is still rising. But on the British side of the continental shelf—the British shelf—the overall number of spuds, that is, holes actually opened, was down 12 per cent. in the first six months of this year as against last year. There has been a slide this year up to June of some 20 per cent. in the number of exploration spuds and there has been nearly a 40 per cent.—in fact, it is 39 per cent. to be exact—fall in appraisal well spuds on the British side of the shelf. So the question which prompts itself is whether the Department of Energy and the Treasury are right in their approach to the exploration and development of the continental

1059
shelf, however right they may be—and I think that they have got it right—with regard to BNOC.
We saw a pretty equivocal series of answers given to the Select Committee in another place last December and it is worth quoting just one passage from the report in this context. We were told that the Committee:
"considers that Government denials that it has tried to exercise any influence in establishing North Sea oil prices are at best unhelpful and at worst misleading".
Those are harsh words. Although I believe that the Government are right in the steps which they are taking now because we cannot influence the oil price today, the question to be asked is whether the department in general has the right approach to the oil industry with regard to the shelf.
The department is sometimes suspected of trying to compete with the Treasury in exercising the maximum squeeze on the oil companies in regard to their drilling programmes and so on. We are beginning perhaps —who knows?—to see a decline in drilling. Therefore, the real question now is not whether or not we should proceed with this Bill, although in my view I think that we should do so. The operations which we saw in a period of rising price have turned into something quite silly with a falling price and there are all kinds of reasons to suppose that the price may well continue to fall.
It is not usually realised that taking the world motorcar industry as a whole, over the last 10 years or so the average number of miles per gallon driven by a car has now been increased by five. It is not usually realised that fuel per tonne-mile of air freight has dropped nearly 40 per cent. (39 per cent., to be exact) since 1973. It is not usually realised that oil used per unit of consumption in the OECD countries came down some 34 per cent. between 1973 and 1985. Those are all factors making for a slide in oil prices to say nothing of other factors which are now current daily news.
Mexico is dipping below the OPEC level; Venezuela is very likely to follow suit; a new Iraqi pipeline across Saudi Arabia is likely to open in September carrying half a million barrels of crude oil a day; and Iran is certainly tiring of the Gulf war so that peace may come about. Those are all factors which point to a continued slide—let us hope a gentle slide—in the world market for crude oil which no single country, so far as I am aware, can arrest. OPEC combined cannot arrest it. Certainly BNOC trading with a maximum of 1·3 million barrels a day cannot arrest it. Therefore, this legislation is necessary.
We want to make sure that the agency which takes over the residual activities is effective and that the department is adequately staffed for that purpose so that when the time comes in, let us hope, five, six, seven or 10 years time when the market begins to rise again, the facilities are there for dealing with that situation.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, we have had a short if very informed debate. I am most appreciative of those of your Lordships' House who have seen fit to wait after the cameras have switched off to get down to the really important business of the House. Like my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, I feel rather sorry that
1060
the cameras did not have the benefit of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Those of your Lordships who have been with the noble Lord in another place are not unused to his contributions, although latterly in another place he had certain restraints of the Whip's Office although of course they were not quite so severe as they are for those in Government. However, we are glad that he can contribute to the full in this place. I shall try to deal with some of the points which the noble Lord raised, but I am sure that he would not expect me to deal in detail with all of the many rather involved points which he raised. We shall have an opportunity of going into them at a later date.
I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who, with his distinguished legal background, has been able to bring a new dimension to our energy debate. We look forward to the Committee stage to hear what he has to say on some of the specific points which he mentioned. I am also most grateful of course to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale for his support and indeed for the very interesting résumé which he gave us of the present situation within the oil industry. In view of his knowledge and experience, he has a great deal to contribute in this sphere.
The noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Lloyd, both raised with me the question of security of supply. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, tended to belittle the role of company assurances in the security of supply and magnified the role of the British National Oil Corporation. United Kingdom consumers cannot use crude oil, however much oil BNOC could bring back to the United Kingdom. In view of its long-term contracts it could not bring back all that much anyway, certainly not quickly. It would be useless unless we had the assurance of our refiners that it would be refined to maintain product supplies to the United Kingdom market. If we have assurances that our market will be covered, then we have no need of BNOC's crude oil supplies. It is as simple as that.
However, I am not going to leave it there. It is not appropriate to discuss the particular circumstances of individual private companies. What is relevant is that each of the United Kingdom refineries has recognised its responsibility to its British consumers, and will do what it can, within the law, to keep United Kingdom consumers supplied unless any shortfall reaches such a level as to invoke our international obligations.
Given the circumstances of today's oil market there is fortunately little chance that there will be any shortfall of supplies in the forseeable future. It is therefore perhaps instructive—indeed I think it is important—for us to look at how the last Labour Government sought to safeguard supplies in the mid to late 1970s when there was a very real prospect of supply difficulties.
For a start, the Labour Government failed to secure a single assurance from a United Kingdom refiner. Instead their policy relied on the operation of the participation agreements and on BNOC. When the crisis came in 1978–79 this policy demonstrably failed because BNOC had committed large volumes of its crude oil availabilities to overseas purchasers on long-term contracts.

1061
It is also interesting to note the Labour Government's policy on oil pricing in a crisis. Those were the days of statutory price controls. So when the companies' supply costs went up they has no assurance that they would be able to recover the increase in prices promptly. That did not promote eagerness to keep the United Kingdom market supplied. Nor did it, nor could it, have isolated the United Kindom market from the international increase in crude oil costs. So up prices went in due course in line with the market, but only after a delay which threatened supplies.
I make these points because they are important and relevant in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. I noticed that he chose his words carefully, and he did not say that a future Labour Government would allow the history of Clause 4 to overcome and blind the initiative in the future, but he hinted that there would be the creation again of something not dissimilar to that which we have abolished. I do not think that that is the sort of policy which is likely to encourage oil companies to explore in the North Sea.
As my noble friend Lord Lauderdale pointed out, there is just the slight hint of a falling off, although I must remind my noble friend that last year was a record year in the North Sea, when more wells were drilled than have ever been drilled since the discovery of North Sea oil. However, I have little doubt that the sort of threat which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, gave tonight would do little to encourage the oil companies to increase their exploration should there ever be another Labour Government elected, which of course is very questionable.
The noble Lord also raised the question of tax reference. The value of the BNOC price as an indicator of market value had already disappeared with its contract sales at that price. Given the considerable growth in arm's length spot sales, the Oil Taxation Office is confident that it will have sufficient evidence of the market to make price assessments in the changed circumstances. Obviously this is a complicated area, and the Oil Taxation Office is consulting the oil companies about how the revised arrangements will best work. It has not suggested that any role for the agency would be appropriate or desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also raised the point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, of small companies. There is no intention of overriding BNOC's contractual commitments under oil purchase agreements. These will be inherited by the agency, but small companies are aware of Government hopes that it will be the agency's duty to discharge the rights and liabilities it inherits from BNOC.
There are other options available to such small companies if they do not wish to establish their own marketing functions. Several large producers with integrated and non-integrated companies have offered to handle their oil. They are also free to set up cooperative arrangements if they so desire. The fact so far that it appears that insufficient volumes have been committed to any co-operative scheme is itself witness to availability of attractive alternatives.
1062
After all, over the years small companies have gone alongside their big brothers in order to gain experience when exploration and when licensing takes place. It is not new for the small companies to be faced with this sort of situation. Indeed, even the biggest of our oil companies started off as small companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was largely correct to say that the IEA arrangements are concerned with major crises. This Bill of course is concerned with the agency's role in a minor shortage. I can remember in debates in another place many years ago there always being great arguments as to what constituted a minor shortage, but I suppose that if we take the 7 per cent. figure which triggers off the IEA commitment and we take something less than that, broadly speaking we are dealing with minor shortages.
However, the IEA has developed, and is developing, arrangements to meet the threat to world oil prices from a lesser shortfall. It is only by international cooperation, to which BNOC is not really relevant, that we can contain such economic threats to the world's well-being so far as oil is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, also raised the question of royalty in kind. He rightly said that that is an involved subject. I shall not deal with it in detail tonight. What I would say is that the Government's powers to take royalty in kind are incorporated in licence model clauses and are not altered in any way by this Bill. The policy as announced by the previous Secretary of State on 30th June 1982 of taking royalty oil in kind from most offshore oil fields continues in force. BNOC's losses have arisen largely through not being able to sell oil at as high a price as they paid for it. Royalty oil is sold on behalf of the Government. BNOC makes no payment for it, and remits the proceeds to the Government. Variations in the proceeds have not affected BNOC's financial position. The agency will be in an identical position so far as that is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raised a number of other issues but I think he will understand if I do not deal with them in detail tonight because we shall have further opportunities to do so. In some quarters the Government have been accused of acting like a member of OPEC by trying to prop up the price of oil. That charge is unfounded. We have no view about the most desirable absolute level for the price of oil. As the country is responsible for only about 5 per cent. of the world oil production, we should not be able to influence this even if we wished to.
What the Government have recognised is that sharp movements in oil prices are in nobody's interests. A sharp fall adds to the risks of the world banking system, threatens important debtor countries and reduces the incentive of energy conservation and substitution away from oil. That could mean that in a few years' time OPEC's powers might become restored and we should face another sharp rise in oil prices and the inevitable damage which that would have on the world economy.
This Bill gives the Government powers to dissolve the British National Oil Corporation, whose principal function in recent years has been to trade in participation oil. These powers are needed because

1063
with the changes in the structure of the oil market and the current surplus of oil supplies—this was well illustrated by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in his speech—there is no advantage in trading participation oil and there would be a number of disadvantages in continuing to do so. If participation trading continued, BNOC would need to continue offering a price to its suppliers. The events of the last year have demonstrated that this need to set a price is undesirable because it is apt to destabilise the market. Perhaps a comparison here is relevant: our need, for example, for bread at a time of war does not require us to trade bread through a public sector trading organisation during peacetime. Oil is hardly any more important to our economy than food.
I shall be happy to deal in more detail with the particular points which concern Members during the Committee stage, but in the meantime I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Video Recordings (Labelling) Regulations 1985
8.22 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Video Recordings (Labelling) Regulations [1985 S.I. 911], laid before the House on 21st June, be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I move the Prayer, which is the first of the two Motions, but discuss the two Motions together, make one speech—I cannot promise that it will be a short one—but at the end of the debate I shall ask leave to withdraw the Prayer and not move the second Motion. I think that will be the convenient procedure to follow.
[The Motion referred to above reads as follows: That the revised proposals for designation of persons as authority to determine the suitability of video works for classification, laid before the House on 14th June, should not be made.]
Although there is no space given to me at the conclusion of the debate on the printed list of noble Lords who are to speak, I believe that I shall have if I wish a few minutes at the end of the debate, if only for the formality of withdrawing the Motion. With that understanding, I can now embark on my rather complicated task.
It is just over a year ago since the Video Recordings Act was passed and these two Motions relate to the first essential steps towards its implementation. The delay of a year has been partly due to the tragic and lamentable death of Lord Harlech in full health and vigour and quite clearly a man who was to play a key role in the implementation of the Video Recordings Act. His death was a grievous loss and setback to all concerned. Those of us who knew him and admired his talents in other directions apart from this feel a keen sense of loss.
The delay was due also to the unavoidable difficulty in the circumstances in which the Act was passed of
1064
not having made adequate preparation for it. The Government were not ready for what happened. The sponsors of the Bill were unable to provide the administrative background to the implementation of their own Bill. Much of the work which has already been accomplished and much that still lies ahead had not been fully thought out by the time the Bill became law.
The second Motion on the Order Paper relates to the first essential of the whole enterprise, which is the appointment of the so-called designated authority under Section 4 of the Act. I am very much confused about the constitutional position of the British Board of Film Classification in relation to the designated authority and the respective functions which belong to each, if there are two. There may be a difference, but no real distinction. They may be really one body. The noble Baroness knows that I wish to have this matter cleared up.
Section 4(1) of the Act empowers the Home Secretary to designate any person. Section 4(2) enables him to designate two or more persons jointly as the authority responsible. In the result the Home Secretary in his proposed letter of designation, which is the second of the two orders with which I am dealing, has designated three: the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and Miss Monica Sims. These three persons are the officers of the British Board of Film Classification. They are designated as the authority under the Act. I am advised that in nominating persons it is possible to be nominating a body. But this again is an obscure matter with which I am not competent to deal.
I wish to remark, however, that after 70 years of the British Board of Film Censors, they have discarded the term "censors" and cleverly found the word "classification" which keeps the initials the same and I believe they find it an apt and convenient substitute. I may also add (if it is true) that the new chairman of the British Board of Film Classification desired this change because he did not believe in censorship. I say "Good for him" and express that as my humble opinion.
I have two matters to raise on the designated authority. I have given the noble Baroness a full brochure of my points and arguments for tonight and have therefore shown my hand to her, if she can read my handwriting! Nothing that I say or ask will come as a complete surprise, or very little. The first question I ask is: what is the constitutional position of the designated authority? In some communications the Home Secretary refers to the British Board of Film Classification; in another connection and also under a section of the Act the British Board of Film Classification decides on the fees. I am a little confused about who is doing what. I am also ignorant as to who is paying for what. I am not sure what the finances of this kind of Siamese twin are going to be. If that can be cleared up, I think that we shall then know whether to talk about the British Board of Film Classification or some other name which the designated authority may have. I think that is about all I need say on that particular matter.
I can now go on to the second point related to the designated authority—that is, the numbers and the composition. I take it that what the Government have

1065
done is to accept the three new officers of the British Board of Film Classification who are not appointed by the Government and take them over as the persons named for the designated authority. The first question that I ask is this. Why is the number limited to three, especially, if I may say so with respect, when of the three, two are Members of your Lordships' House? The third is a retired officer of the BBC, a former controller of BBC radio. I need scarcely say that I have not a single word to say against any of them. I am sure that we are all impressed by their talented experience. But is three enough for this particular task? Here we are dealing with video recordings and not with film in the sense that the British Board of Film Censors (now Classification) were dealing with the film industry and films for public exhibition.
This is a much wider task with a much wider range of products and of activity never before experienced by this board throughout its whole history. The video world is a rapidly expanding world and its full potential cannot be foreseen at the present time. After video will come cable, and after cable may come satellite. One can only imagine what the world of communications will look like in a few years' time. In asking whether three is enough, and having referred with great respect to the three members of the board—I call them the "Big Three" of classification—I think I had better refer also to the composition of the consultative council and the composition of the Video Recordings Appeals Committee, because the same point arises on the composition of all three.
Take first the Video Consultative Council. There are 24 members of the consultative council and there are 12 members of the video appeals committee. I want to remind the House that this Act was believed to be necessary to protect the children of working-class families who were said by a body of researchers to be especially at risk because of the repulsive, nasty stuff which was the subject of so much emotional condemnation at the time the Bill was going through. I want to ask where is the voice of the people, as distinct from the professionals, on all these bodies. The professionals are estimable people; there is not a word to say against them. But they are the people who are professional in the art of saying what is good for other people. Their job is to advise on conditions and tastes and what is suitable to be used in the homes of the mass of the people.
The consultative council, in the words of the Home Secretary, in the proposed letter of designation of authority, requires them to take account of the views of the wider public. How wide is the range of the body, which is composed as to one-third by direct representation of commercial and trade union interests and as to one-third by direct representatives of local authorities? They and the remaining one-third are quite independent but are scarcely closely identifiable with the outlook of working people from the homes where most video viewing takes place.
Where is the mother of three who has to look after the kids on a wet Saturday afternoon and wants to put on a video to keep them quiet and entertained but who has now to undergo the guidance of the classification process to decide what may be good for them and who will not be allowed to put on something which the
1066
classification authority say should not be there at all? There is not even the statutory housewife on any of these bodies; and you know how indispensable she is on nearly all Government committees.
I wonder what consultation has taken place with what I would call the working-class viewpoint. I do not like the term "working class"; but working classes were mentioned in the propaganda in support of this Bill and they are undoubtedly the largest section of the community looking at videos. Was the education committee of the TUC, for example, consulted about having someone on at least the consultative council and the appeals committee who might be identified with the more earthy outlook and be more familiar with the conditions of working-class people?
I think it is a great lack in all the authorities that have been appointed. As for the board itself, three may be a very convenient number for a committee; although it used to be said in my day that the best committee is a committee of three with two of them away sick. I would not suggest that the British Board of Film Censors would operate under those conditions. But three is a very small number to be this supreme director of the whole operation—
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? What is his quarrel with three? We have three persons of the trinity who govern the universe, we have three graces, three muses, three fates or what-have-you. What is wrong with three?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, what is wrong with three is that it is not a large enough number. Three does not give the scope for the representation of interests or outlooks. I should have thought that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, knows enough about committee life to realise that some committees are regarded as too small, as some are regarded as too large, for the discharge of their particular tasks. All that I am saying is this. Show me where in the whole outfit of the board, the consultative council and the appeals committee the authentic voice of the working class and the general run of homes in Britain is to be heard. Certainly it is not on any of these committees or boards.
That is all I have to say about that, because I have made the point. I have asked the Minister whether consultations about the composition of the consultative council and the appeals committee extended to the education committee of the TUC, of which I used to be a member. In connection with other matters relating to harmful publications for children and so forth, which went through both Houses years ago, the education committee of the TUC was very much involved.
I want now to turn to a matter of policy to be followed by the designated authority. The Home Secretary's proposed letter of designation and direction sticks to the letter of the Act. He has quite properly relied on the wording of Section 4(1)(a) that in issuing classification certificates the authority must have special regard to the likelihood of video works being viewed in the home.
That is a guiding principle and the world of video will be classified through three pairs of eyes of the board. Their examiners will have to do much of the

1067
practical work, quite obviously, and they will almost certainly be given some guidelines to follow in their own judgment of what they see. Therefore, my next question to the Minister is: Will those guidelines be available to the consultative council which I believe is to meet for the first time on 11th September, and will they be made public? Can we all know what the examiners of video works are following in the conduct of their judgment?
Another point of policy which I must raise relates to the use of the Obscene Publications Acts. The Home Secretary's letter of direction says that the BBFC will continue to avoid classifying works which are obscene. The material point here is how far proceedings under the Obscene Publication Acts are to be taken to test the court's judgment of what the board may do. At the present time considerable harassment is going on of retailers and others by the police authorities, and a large number of prosecutions are being undertaken under the Obscene Publications Acts in extremely dubious circumstances. I hope that will cease when the new system of a prosecuting authority begins in the New Year. I know there is likely to be an entirely new regime for prosecutions under these Acts when the new system begins, but at present I believe that the Obscene Publication Acts are being misused by the police authorities because in many cases prosecutions are taking place on the same work in different places, even though acquittals have been secured. Each police authority seems to be on its own, doing what it likes to try to get convictions in its own area if it wishes.
Up to now there have been more acquittals than convictions by far, and I wonder how much public money is being spent on unsuccessful prosecutions which juries probably regard (as I do) as having been undertaken in unsatisfactory circumstances. Therefore, I am going to put to the Minister that when the designated authority has classified a video work, only in the rarest cases and for exceptional reasons should the judgment of the designated authority be challenged in the courts under the Obscene Publications Acts.
Of course, we know that if the board decides not to classify a video work, anyone who deals with it and puts it around is liable to be prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Acts: he has no protection. But surely when we have this high level—élitist, if you like—body of people to look at the classification of works, when the board or the designated authority has classified a work then it should stand and not be open to challenge at the whim of any police authority. There is a good deal of feeling about this in the industry at present.
I turn now to an important matter of administration, and it relates to exempt works. Here an awful lot of trouble is already brewing, and I am getting a lot of it. Exempt works under Section 2 of the Act are also related to exempt supplies under Section 3, so that video works which fall within the description and condition of Section 2 of the Act are exempt from classification and need not be submitted for labelling.
I brought out this point very clearly during the course of our debates on the Bill: that Section 2 refers to educational works, to sport, religion, music or a video game. I am telling people who consult me on this that those who produce works which they believe are
1068
exempt works are entitled to use their own judgment and to follow it in what they do. That means they need not submit anything for exemption: there is no such label as "exemption". If a work is exempt, somebody has to exempt it, and it is the producer of the video who is entitled to do so. There is a great deal of difficulty and doubt about this at the moment in various quarters.
I have sent the Minister copies of letters and memoranda which I have received from some people, and
I have sent him letters and memoranda sent on behalf of others who are involved in the rapidly expanding use of video for education, information and instruction. There is a Society for Education in Film and Television, covering a wide interest in charitable and non-profitable video. There is a head of education of the British Film Institute; there is a national children's home and they are making increasing use of video for training and fund raising. There is a home mission division of the Methodist Church who are providing audio visual material for church use for sale or rent on free loan.
Therefore, I make two points here. The first is that it is essential that the designated authority should produce helpful advice for the benefit of the growing number of bodies and persons in this field of exempt works. They must be spared the doubt, the worry and the possible expense of submission for classification. They need their fears allayed and they need to be reassured. I think it should also be made clear that the producer of a video work which is
for use within the purposes of Section 2 should use his own judgment as to whether it is an exempt work. If his judgment is wrong, he may take advantage of the provisions of Sections 9 and 10, which deal with the defence of a person who may be charged without good reason. Can the Minister make it clear for the record that this is correct, so that it can be quoted among those who are very much concerned?
Only a few minutes before the debate began, I received a paper from the Cambridge University Students' Union, who run a video co-operative. They have already done some films and are about to produce others. They issue information about the admission, the procedures and other matters related to getting into the universities. There is a film also about student life in Cambridge. I would say that these films would be exempt works, but they want to make copies for schools from which students may come to Cambridge and who may be interested in what student life at Cambridge is like. Will these copies be exempted supplies if they charge for them? I think here one may feel some doubt as to whether an exempt work is also an exempt supply if it is distributed for use by others for reward, for hire or for loan.
All I know is that I am told by the Cambridge Students' Union that if they have to pay labelling fees for these films that they are doing, and have done already, they will have to give up all this work because £35 a time for labelling is something they cannot afford when all their works are done for nothing and they wish to circulate them to others for the smallest recompense of the cost incurred.
I have sent details of the letters I have received to the noble Baroness. I have also sent some representations that have come from the industry regarding the

1069
labelling regulations. I have mentioned particularly the most tiresome part of the labelling regulations which requires the sleeve in which a display case may be put for a hirer to take away to be labelled as well as the display case, so that where the retailer is putting the display case in a sleeve for protection while it is in the hands of someone hiring it it has to be labelled three times: first, on the spool; secondly, on the display case; and thirdly, on the sleeve. But the sleeve is no more than an overcoat. Nobody can use what is underneath without getting into the display case which is fully labelled.
The trouble is that nearly all regulations go too far. The real aim and purpose of the Act is obscured in the detail of how people must conduct their affairs to comply with the requirements laid down. I hope that this matter will be dealt with by the advisory council who will have on it representatives of the industry. I have said already that they begin work on 11th September; and I wish them a good start. Their job is to see that the implementation of this Act is not made a nightmare and a hindrance to honest trade. This Act was not passed to make criminals and expose respectable traders to harassment by the police.
The great shame of it is that the rapidly-growing video industry failed to get properly organised in time to police itself. It was the victim of a whipped-up emotional rampage against so-called video "nasties" and a Government too weak to withstand hysteria. I am glad to learn there is now a new Confederation of Information and Communications Industry—CICI—which has been formed to embrace the publishing trade as well as films and videos. It also embraces the two main broadcasting authorities. Such a body should see to it that they are not again swept aside by the upsurge of exaggerated fears.
The only interest which I have in all this is to see fair play and to check any unnecessary inroads into civil liberty and the consequent spread of bureaucratic interference with the way in which we wish to live and to make our own choices on our own responsibility. I think that this Act should be watched closely in operation and challenged whenever it goes too far. It needs to be monitored and researched with unremitting care and integrity. I have myself adopted a humble role as convenor of many societies with interests in a group which I hope will see that all this research is undertaken. I therefore now move the first Order standing in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Video Recordings (Labelling) Regulations [1985 S.I. 911], laid before the House on 21st June, be annulled.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
8.54 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who repeated many of the things that he said last year, particularly in his peroration. I should state that in so far as Parliament was moved—not just this House but the other House as well—to legislate on this matter it was moved because families up and down the country were anxious, worried, about the material which their children were seeing. That is not just working-class
1070
children but all families. The noble Lord draws a distorted picture, as he did last year. It was because Parliament was convinced that the danger was there that it has enacted the legislation which we have before us and has made this first pair of statutory orders designating the authority and making regulations in connection with the tapes.
There are one or two points which I should like to take up on what the noble Lord has said. The noble Lord asked some questions about the composition of the Video Consultative Council. I have some to ask too and I share with him the concern that the views of the consumer—that is to say, families throughout the country—should be heard. But I make the point very broadly that this is for the protection of all families. There are hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country who are concerned to have this protection. But the protection is not what the noble Lord is constantly inveighing against: that they are being prevented from seeing what they want to see. What this scheme does is to classify the tapes so that they will know when they go into a shop to buy or hire a tape what they are getting.
That is the job which the authority does. That in my view is an extremely valuable one. I am very grateful to it for taking on a difficult, onerous job, often unpleasant, when one considers some of the material the members have to see. The noble Lord has spared himself seeing this material but perhaps one of these days he will pluck up his courage to go and have a look at it and then he will understand just what a difficult job it is and how important that it should he done properly.
I should say straight away that I am most grateful personally to these three admirable people who have taken on the job and accepted designation. At the same time I should like to record, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did, my deep regret at losing Lord Harlech—a most distinguished president of the past—and very much missed in this context when this very heavy load is now falling on the British Board of Film Classification. They have changed the name from "Censors". I make the point to the noble Lord—and I am sure he accepts it—that their job is to classify. They will not prevent anybody doing anything. If a family are foolish enough to take home tapes which are not suitable for children to see, so much the worse for that family The only tape which they cannot get in an ordinary shop is the Restricted-18, and that can only be obtained in a sex shop. That, as the noble Lord will remember, was one of the provisions in the Bill. This structure is one which has had a very proper regard to the liberty of the subject, at the same time making a reasonable protection for families up and down the country against the inadvertent purchase of hire of tapes which are thoroughly unsuitable to be brought home for the family circle.
I should like to put the point to my noble friend with regard to the appeal system. Who will appoint this independent body of persons of distinction and integrity for the appeal system? I think we should all be interested to hear that. It appears that the appeal system is set up primarily to provide appeal machinery for the trade. But perhaps my noble friend can tell us this. Can other interested people—a mother or a father—who are worried about the classification

1071
appeal too? Or can any other outside person? What is the provision for the members of the public appealing if they wish to? When the appeal body is in action, will it have public sessions or private sessions? Both from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and indeed from that of the rest of the world, I should have thought that it was better to have public sessions so that members of the public who are interested can go and listen to the process.
With regard to the consultative council, like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I should like to know who the one-third who are members of the wider public are going to be. I entirely approve of the structure of one-third from the video industry and one third from local authorities—that all seems very sensible—but how are the wider public going to be picked and how are we going to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, rightly said, that we get a fair representation of the general consumer interest?
With regard to the actual functioning of the authority, I assume that the president and the two vice-presidents are going to be appointed for a period of years. Perhaps my noble friend will tell me for how long they are prepared to be appointed for this very onerous task.
I say straight away that I am very pleased to see these orders. I congratulate the president and the two vice-presidents and the examiners on the progress they have made. I recognise that they have an enormously heavy task in sheer volume, apart from the technical difficulties, so I feel we all have a deep sense of gratitude to them for taking it on. They have done well to bring along the first tranche now. I certainly wish them well in their heavy work in future in doing what is an essential job of classifying this material to ensure that the vast range of material which is entertaining, amusing, exciting and entirely wholesome is clear for them to see and the material which becomes bluer and bluer as it goes down the range is clearly defined so that those who do not wish to see such material will not see it.
I give my noble friend warm support. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, having given us this opportunity to have a brief debate on this matter, intends to withdraw his Prayer at the end of the debate.
9.3 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, stood up, for a second I thought that I would have an awful thing to do. I thought that I would have to apologise to him when he said that he was withdrawing his Prayer and his Motion—apologise not for anything I had said but for what I was going to say. I was under the genuine impression that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was going to push these through. I thought that we would even have a Division. I thought back to the hours and hours that we spent discussing this Bill and I thought, "Oh no, not again!"
However, as the noble Lord progressed in his speech, we once again heard those lovely words that those who were opposed to video nasties were being emotional and that this had been drummed up by people who are against the video interests. Now we are told that this Bill was introduced to protect working
1072
class children. This surprises me. Why should so-called working class children require protection rather than any other type of children? The Bill was brought in to protect all children regardless of religion and colour. It was nothing to do with enjoyment. It was to do with censorship. In this life we have to accept a certain amount of censorship—this is because we live in a democracy. I demand the right that my children—if they were young enough—and those whom I love should be protected by law from being subjected to the possibility of seeing degrading and disgusting video nasties. I am not talking about so-called "soft" pornographic films, most of which are rather humorous, or even "hard" pornographic films; but there is nothing funny about real video nasties.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in saying that I wish the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would watch the video nasties that we saw. I am sure that the police would be very happy to show them to him. I found them sickening—and I did not exactly grow up in a sheltered environment when I was young. I can assure the House that in five years in the merchant navy at the end of the war one saw almost everything.
I said that I was afraid that I might be in a position where I would have to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hougton. To my amazement, I now find that I am actually going to agree with him—I should add that it is on only one or two things. It seems to me that the classification boards are rather few in number. They do not seem to be very representative of the country as a whole. If they were broader based I feel that it would give the noble Lord. Lord Houghton, less reason to talk about the protection of working-class children. There are problems. I think that the orders are possibly not as good as they might be. If this is so, it really is the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, himself who is partly to blame. That is because the Bill took an extremely long time to pass through your Lordships' House, and it was only because of the grace of God and the Government Chief Whip that the Bill became law. It is therefore very possible that not enough time was given to working out the detail of the Bill.
However, having not quite apologised to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and having almost agreed with him, I should like to conclude by thanking him for his words at the beginning of his speech, when he said that he would not be pressing his Motion.
9.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I listened with the greatest care to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, but I found myself not recognising areas of this country in the way that the noble Lord appears to recognise them. I was surprised to hear him speak in such protectionist terms about the growing video manufacturing industry. It is a very large industry, as the noble Lord reminded your Lordships.
The noble Lord's phrase, as I heard it, was that these very modest attempts to understand, regulate, label and classify videos are presenting "a nightmare and hindrance to honest traders". I believe those were the noble Lord's words. I find it hard to recognise that that is so in the light of the hard evidence of the past five years which painstakingly, fairly, carefully and professionally our own parliamentary all-party video

1073
group has gathered together for all interested people to study closely, and on which that group is still working.
It seems to me that to refer to a "nightmare" for the industry is almost to forget the nightmares which small, innocent, and at first unsuspecting children have suffered. It will be very hard to know whether they will ever be able to throw off the scars of what they have seen. Because the nation, in both Houses, had so firmly agreed with this particular Act, which is now part of the national life, it is surely proper and sensible for your Lordships not to object to this initial pattern of the Video Recordings (Labelling) Regulations 1985 but to give them at least a fair chance. Perhaps in 12 months' time, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, may do us the honour of helping by bringing this matter forward again. But to attempt to deny the workings of these useful public citizens before they have even started seems to me to be verging on the unfair.
I recognise that if the noble Lord desires to show compassion to the growing video industry then it is fortunate that it has such a doughty, energetic and good supporter. But throughout the whole of the 32 minutes of the noble Lord's speech, I did not hear him once speak in terms of compassion for those who have suffered grievous harm through the videos which the industry has produced and which have made it necessary, in the public interest, for the Video Recordings Act 1984 to pass into law.
I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to an important piece of research by Redecki which he laid before the Committee on Culture and Education in Strasbourg in 1983, simply to underline both the importance of the Act and the need for it to work well, and therefore for the classifications to be implemented with the greatest care.
One of the discoveries made by Redecki in his research, using television in the wider sense but taking videos even more closely into his purview, was that,
"It teaches such a tolerance for violence that we are allowing increasingly horrendous amounts in our homes, schools and society without taking real action to eliminate its source".
Because the industry is producing good material, I believe that it must not be castigated for all the video nasties. I believe also that the industry as a whole will be glad of these regulations which will help the industry to put its house in order.
I intend to speak for only another minute, my Lords; but I should like to put in a contrary word to the phrase about the police used by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. It seems to me wrong to use such a generalised statement as "harassment" and to speak of extremely dubious methods used by our police force. That is a statement with which our police force ought not to be labelled without a dissenting voice being raised or it may appear that it is the view not of a single Member of the House but of the whole House.
Those of us who work closely with the police force and who know it well in all the areas where we live and work, know that the police force needs not only our support but our encouragement and our congratulations. In the evils which have accosted the children of our nation before the passing of the Act last year the police have been one of the bastions of care for our children and I should not like it to go unrecorded that
1074
many of your Lordships support the police in the distasteful work that they have to do, working with the instruments to their hands. With that, therefore, I should like to put my voice on the other side to that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Houghton has been let off lightly this evening, I think, because at the beginning of his speech he made it clear that he was not pressing the matter to a conclusion. I think that he is right not to do so but he is nevertheless entitled to some support as well as being let off with a caution having, as it were, confessed his guilt and said that he was not going to do it again.
The atmosphere is entirely wrong, because, in my judgment, my noble friend has performed a public service throughout the whole operation of the Act. He has exposed the fact that Parliament has once again been led into making a fool of itself. The consequence is that we have this absurd dog's dinner of legislation which will cause us endless trouble before we are through.
None of us wants the things that noble Lords have suggested, but it would have been perfectly simple to prevent them without going into the complicated arrangements which we are now establishing. As I said during one of the stages of the Bill, one of the great absurdities is that we have, on the one hand, the British Board of Film Censors, which was perfectly capable of taking on the job, had it been given it. It is a private organisation which exists virtually without legislation. To that we are adding a whole barrage of official legislation. Nobody knows what is the relationship between the two. Perhaps we shall be given that information when the noble Baroness replies to the debate, but at this moment neither my noble friend nor I know precisely what is the relationship between all these different committees which are being created. What a nonsense we are now in.
The tragedy is that Lord Harlech is no longer with us. I deeply regret his passing. In so far as it is possible to replace a person of his calibre, I think that it must be said the Government have done well. The fact that those who are taking on this particular job include two Members of this House seems not to be harmful because they are civilised and liberal people. That is the main thing. In so far as it is possible to do a decent job in the circumstances in which they find themselves, they will do it. But the fact that it is an absurdity appears to have escaped noble Lords. We have the creation of odd committees and the creation of other committees privately in order to respond to the committees which have been created publicly. The new private committee which has been set up by the industry itself—the Confederation of Information Communication Industries—has, I understand, been set up in order to respond to the new legislation and was created at the suggestion of the Cabinet Office. I would be most interested to know from the noble Baroness whether the Government, not content with creating all these other small committees under the Act, are now creating another little batch of private committees to prevent the committees they are creating from doing too much damage. Is that what the Government are doing?

1075
This whole operation could have been done much better if it had not been done in a panic and quickly shoved through the other place in a couple of days and if it had not gone through your Lordships' House in an atmosphere of alarm and despondency in which we felt we had to pass new legislation to do something which could have been adequately dealt with by the old legislation. If we had not got into this situation we would not have the consequences with which we are now faced.
Well, we are in it, but just to show noble Lords that I have not been talking nonsense, I should like to offer just one document which sets out what one of the committees—the Video Appeals Committee—has to do. It has a right of appeal and then someone has laid down the appeal procedure: the appellant's notice of appeal; the board's reply; the appellant's reply; the service of documents; interested persons and their rights; the procedure; the committee; the hearing; the decision of the committee; the costs—all these have had to be laid down. And this is only one of the committees which have been set up under these regulations. It runs into page after page of description of what everybody has to do and their rights and responsibilities: how the hearing is to be conducted; what should be done with the decisions of the committee; how they should be made known; the costs; under what circumstances they are dealt with, and so on. This is just one of the burdens that have been hung around the neck of this industry.
Of course there are also the costs. The works in a spoken language which is predominantly English are charged at £4·60 per minute up to two hours. If it is predominantly English there is a standard rate of £3·45 per minute thereafter. Trailers and shorts up to 10 minutes long cost £46—so there is a cut price there. Subtitle works in a spoken language which is predominantly other than English cost £3·45 per minute up to two hours and £2·30 per minute thereafter. So it goes on—detailed information on what everybody has to pay. The whole thing is really a most astonishing collection and I have some sympathy with noble Lords in this House who have to deal with the situation.
Nevertheless I do not think it will do an awful lot of harm. It is a lot of aggravation, a lot of nonsense and causes a great deal of difficulty, but the real concern in the industry is not really the forms which we shall all have to fill up, the money we shall have to find, and so on. The real concern is what will be the effect of this legislation upon other restrictive legislation; what will be the reaction of the Obscene Publications Act? All this
has been touched on by my friend. Will there be a collection of other pieces of legislation which will have to be introduced in order to clear up the mess which has been created by this legislation? Are we into that kind of scene? There is some concern about that. I hope that there will not be. As I said, I do not think it will do an awful lot of harm—at least I hope not—but of one thing I am utterly sure: that is that it will not do any good.
9.22 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to put two sentences into "the gap". I confess my ignorance in that I was not aware that
1076
there was a speakers' list for Prayers to annul orders. I ask your Lordships to forgive me. I rise not only to express my support for my noble friends, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Jenkins of Putney, but also to say that I think that if George Orwell were alive today he would be wryly amused by the "Newspeak" that has developed in the naming of the body with which we are concerned.
For many years we have had a British Board of Film Censors, which in fact has been a British board of film classification, because if it refused to give a classification to a film there were other ways of dealing with whether or not a film could be shown in a cinema, which were either through local authorities or indeed through the Obscene Publications Act and its predecessors. As soon as that British Board of Film Censors ceases to become a classificatory body and in fact becomes a British board of film censors—because whatever the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, may say, this Act is a censorship Act because it imposes penalties on video films to be shown in the home which are not given approval by the designated authority—as soon as the activity changes from classification to censorship, the name changes from censorship to classification. I think, on reflection, that George Orwell would be less than amused!
9.24 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if there is one virtue among many that my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has it is consistency, and I suppose that I could add another—persistence. All of us respect the consistency of his attitude to the causes that he espouses, one of which is the liberty of the subject and as little interference with it as possible. I suppose the other noble Lords who sit behind me and who have spoken in support of him have precisely the same virtues. Having said that, some of us could possibly take exception to phrases such as, "the absurdity of this legislation has escaped noble Lords". I do not want to reply aggressively to such remarks. I merely say to my noble friend who uttered those words that some of us would have said that the phrase, "the weakness of a Parliament which failed to deal with an evil", was something that would appeal to us as more appropriate to this legislation.
I want to make a few points, if I may, and to do so as quickly as possible. The Bill has been called a dog's dinner. I wish to return to my own, which may not deserve that description, as soon as possible at this hour. First, may I make the point that there is no justification whatsoever in this industry for using the parallel of the British Board of Film Censors, whether called by that or any other name. The film industry decided to have a voluntary body—and it is a voluntary body—and it decided, except for an appeal procedure, to abide by that voluntary body's decision on classification. If anybody thinks that the seamy minority end of a very fine video industry would be prepared to abide honestly by the decision of a voluntary body, the absurdity of the suggestion has possibly escaped such a person.
Secondly, everybody has been talking about children, and it is very emotional to talk in terms of the protection of children. Of course, they need protection. The purpose of the Act was to protect all of

1077
us from one simple thing. We want to know before we purchase a video for the members of our family what sort it is. If that is harmful, pernicious and an interference with liberty, I have another definition of the rights of the subject and of liberty.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton—my noble friend—then talks about these regulations, which obviously are necessary once the Act is passed; and it has been passed by both houses of Parliament. I notice with interest that in his speech he did not object to any of the classifications. That is an interesting point because these regulations deal mainly with the whole description of the classifications. He is a very stern critic of legislation which sometimes has ambiguous and unnecessarily complex wording, and so I was waiting for my noble friend, with a smile, to read out Article 2(7)(b) of the regulations, but he did not. It states:
"For the purposes of this paragraph … the statements within paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 7(2) of the Act are to be regarded as being progressively more restrictive so that the statement within the said paragraph (a) is the least restrictive and the statement within the said paragraph (c) that no video recording containing the video work in respect of which the certificate was issued is to be supplied other than in a licensed sex shop is the most restrictive".
I must say that I did not feel that that was language that was going to be clear to a great number of people. I thought that my noble friend Lord Houghton, in the course of what is always an interesting speech, was going to quote that Article 2(7)(b) of the regulations as being a little less than well worded.
What is the point of objection to regulations and procedural steps set out in a document in regard to an appeal? That was what my noble friend Lord Jenkins seemed to think was the strongest part of the attack that he wanted to make, was the most heinous part of the regulations and the documents that had been issued. One cannot have it both ways. When the Bill went through Parliament, some of us fought for the right of appeal. If one fights for the right of appeal one can be criticised if one does not make it clear how one can exercise that right, how the appeals are going to be dealt with in a very fair way. Those who are charged with the duty to put the case against the appeal should ensure that one knows all about it beforehand. If I may say so with respect, to cite this as something to attack under the regulations or in the procedure again escapes me.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may assist my noble friend to comprehend what I was getting at. I was not suggesting that the consequences of the legislation were so much heinous as inevitable—the collection of mess which has arisen from this, one example of which my noble friend hmself has very fairly drawn attention to. The consequences arising from this Act I think were inevitable, and what I was saying is that it was in my view unnecessary.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, yes; I appreciate that my noble friend has put his case very fairly. I was saying merely that I could not see any ground for criticism in regard to an appeal procedure being very clearly set out and I was glad the appeal procedure was there. Of course, I was not talking about anything that was
1078
unnecessary in the regulations; I was merely pointing out that in regulations it is obviously advantageous to have simple language which everybody can understand, and I was saying that this was unecessarily complex.
To conclude, these regulations are, in my personal judgment—and I emphasise the word "personal"—completely necessary to carry out the provisions of an Act which were meant to protect members of the public, in order that they might know precisely what kind of video they were purchasing and also to protect everybody, including children, against the kind of videos that are a disgrace to a great industry and which are extremely harmful—and that is an understatement—to our young people and even to our not-so-young. The judges, the social workers, the church, all are united in thinking that the voice of violence on television is a harmful voice; so is the pornography that sometimes comes on to our screen. I see—I do not use the words "no harm"; but I see benefit in the Act. I originally said so—I see benefit in these regulations which carry out the provisions of the Act—and I say so now.
9.34 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerhy, for providing us with an opportunity to discuss my right honourable friend's proposals for designation under the Video Recordings Act 1984 and his regulations on the labelling of video recordings and their containers. Perhaps I may say personally how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for giving me advance notice in his own fair hand of the questions he intended to raise.
As your Lordships are aware, this Act is designed to provide a swift and effective means of dealing with "video nasties" and to provide guidance—to retailers and to parents—about the suitability of video works for persons of different ages. Video nasties, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly reminded us, have caused a great deal of justifiable concern. The Bill received widespread support during its passage through your Lordships' House when it was piloted with great skill and effectiveness by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I welcomed very much his contribution and, indeed, those of all other noble Lords to this evening's debate.
My right honourable friend made clear, when the Bill was first introduced, that it was his intention to designate the principal officers of the British Board of Film Censors, or the British Board of Film Classification as it is now known. Under Section 4(1) of the Video Recordings Act—this, I hope, clarifies a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—the designated authority is responsible for making general arrangements for the classification of video works. As already stated this evening, my right honourable friend proposes to designate the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and Miss Monica Sims, who are, respectively, the president and the vice-presidents of the British Board of Film Classification, on the understanding of course that the board itself will carry out the classification of video works. In other words, the functions of the

1079
designated authority are to make the arrangements for the classification process to be carried out.
The BBFC will carry out the detailed classification process in accordance with arrangements made by the designated authority. In response to a query by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who asked about the term of appointment of the designated authority, the answer is that it is indefinite. Looking to the future, my right honourable friend would naturally envisage designating any future presidents or vice-presidents of the board on the same basis.
The board has been classifying films for the cinema for more than 70 years. Although local authorities are ultimately responsible for deciding what films may be shown in cinemas in their areas, they are, in almost all cases, content to rely on the recommendations of the board. This demonstrates vividly, I would suggest, the respect and public confidence in which the board is held. It is against this background that my right honourable friend considered it sensible to entrust the important new task of classifying video works to the BBFC. In the view of my right honourable friend, the board has the expertise and the experience to enable it to take on this task. It also has the benefit of public confidence built up over more than 70 years. In his view, there is a good deal of advantage in entrusting arrangements for classifying films for the cinema and responsibility for classifying video works to a single body.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred to
some of the delay that has taken place. It was always recognised that it would take several months from the enactment of the Video Recordings Act to make the necessary arrangements to enable it to be brought into force. The BBFC will be taking on a substantial new task which has considerable resource implications and which raises many considerations of policy and practice that have had to be properly explored and settled.
As the House is aware and as mentioned already this evening, the board suffered a very severe blow at a crucial time with the tragic death in January this year of Lord Harlech, who was president of the board. Lord Harlech was distinguished in a great many fields. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the wisdom, the understanding and the sensitivity that he brought to bear as president of the BBFC. He is very sadly missed by all who knew him, either as a friend or as a colleague.
The British Board of Film Classification is most fortunate that the noble Earl, Lord Harewood, has agreed to become the new president. As I have already indicated, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and Miss Monica Sims have joined the board as vice-presidents. My right honourable friend is confident that the new president and vice-presidents will form a strong and effective team to provide the guidance and leadership which will be especially important as the BBFC takes on the task of classifying new video works and grapples with the many problems which that is bound to generate. Perhaps I may say that I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that he is satisfied with the choice of those people and has confidence in them. He has expressed that this evening.
1080
I turn briefly to the question of the composition of the consultative council which was also queried by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. As foreshadowed during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, the BBFC is setting up a consultative council to advise it on its work in the video field. It is to comprise members of the video industry, representatives of local authority associations and individuals of distinction. That category includes Dr. Alan Gilmour of the NSPCC, Mrs. Anne Jones, a head teacher, and Mrs. Susan Baring who I understand is a representative of the Council of Probation Committees. I am sure that such people will provide a wide cross-section of advice, opinion and experience. Of course those not directly represented will no doubt be quick to get in touch with the board with any criticisms of its performance.
Mention has also been made during the debate this evening of the appeals committee. The appeals committee is similarly to be balanced in its composition with people of integrity who, I am sure, can be relied upon to serve conscientiously and responsibly. I shall be happy to arrange for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to receive a list of members of the appeals committee. However, in answer to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and his query about the appeals system, let me point out that the BBFC nominated the members of the appeals committee and its nominations have been approved by
my right honourable friend. My noble friend also asked how many of them there would be. The number is 12.
In response to my noble friend's query concerning opportunities for the public to appeal against the board's decisions, perhaps I may say that I think it is expected that the designated authority and the board will have the interests of members of the public in the forefront of their minds in their deliberations and decisions. It would not be practicable for a certificate, once issued, to be withdrawn. Consequently direct appeals by members of the public cannot be readily built in; nor does the Act require or contemplate that. However, there is of course nothing to prevent members of the public from representing their views to the designated authority either directly or through the consultative council with a view to influencing its judgment in future cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also raised another question in terms of implementation and timing. Perhaps I may point out that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur indicated in an Answer to a Question from my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford on 1lth June that it is proposed to bring the Act into force in a series of stages. It will come into force on 1st September this year for new works. It will then come into force in a series of further stages over the next three years for existing material in such a way that potentially objectionable material will be dealt with as early as possible. As explained by my noble friend, use is to be made for these purposes of the register of films maintained by the Department of Trade and Industry. Alphabetical lists of films on this register will be made available to video dealers so that they will be able readily to ascertain at what point particular video works will become subject to the requirements of the Act.
I entirely accept that under this scheme not only will material too extreme to be shown in the cinema, and

1081
thus not on the DTI register, fall within the scope of the criminal provisions of the Act at the end of the first stage, but so also will a good deal of innocuous material. However, the latter will simply need to be classified sooner rather than later and I do not think that there is any great unfairness of hardship in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also raised some questions with regard to labelling regulations. The purpose of these regulations is to make provisions to enable video dealers, customers and parents to see at a glance the age group for which a video is suitable. The regulations are made under Section 8 of the Video Recordings Act which envisaged the labelling of both video recordings and their containers, and the regulations provide accordingly.
The classification certificates for which provision is made in Section 7 of the Act are based on classifications currently used by the British Board of Film Classification. Similarly, the labelling regulations before your Lordships this evening take due account of the symbols associated with films classified for the cinema.
The regulations require an indication of the classification given to the most restrictively classified video work on a video recording to be contained on the recording itself and on, or visible through, any container in which the recording is kept. These regulations should ensure that it will be possible to see immediately whether a particular recording contains only works suitable for general viewing or whether, on the other hand, it contains material suitable only for persons who have attained the specified age. This will achieve the same sort of effect as the notices displayed in cinemas as to the classification of the films that they are showing.
These labelling regulations have been drawn up in close consultation with the video industry and the British Board of Film Classification. We have made a number of modifications to their original proposal as a result of representations which they have received. I hope that some of those points put the question of labelling regulations into context. We believe that they are important because the requirements will provide clear and helpful guidance to consumers and suppliers. We do not believe that they will impose unreasonable burdens on video dealers.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the question of exemptions, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. His comments about educational and religious material raise the whole question of exemptions in Section 2. That part, Section 2, exempts works designed to inform, educate, or instruct, or works concerned with sport, religion or music, subject only to the proviso in Section 2(2) about material containing sex or violence. I imagine that much of the material used by educational establishments will benefit from this exemption. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, showed me copies of some of the letters he had received from bodies particularly concerned with education, and I think their concerns will be met by this exemptions provision.
I would also point out that Section 3 exempts a range of different kinds of supplies—including supplies which are neither for reward nor in the course or
1082
furtherance of a business—regardless of the content of the material concerned. If a work is an exempted work, no question then arises as to whether or not the supply of the work is also exempted. The work can be dealt in without it having been classified. I hope that clarifies the point for the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also raised the question of fees. I think the answer to that question is that the tariff of fees has been designed to cover the cost of the classification process. I think the last of the specific questions raised by the noble Lord. Lord Houghton, with which I can deal tonight, refers to his concern about the Obscene Publications Act. In making no provision in a Video Recordings Act concerning the application of the Obscene Publications Act to video recordings, Parliament must be taken to have decided that works classified by the Board should not be automatically immune from prosecution. Nevertheless, we share the noble Lord's concern about local variations in prosecution policy, that they should be avoided, and that any prosecution should be undertaken only after the most careful consideration of the case.
My right honourable friend therefore has it in mind to advise chief officers of police, with the concurrence of my right honourable friend the Attorney-General, that a specimen recording should be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice before any steps are taken to proceed under the Obscene Publications Act in respect of a work which as been classified by the board. If this suggestion is followed by chief officers of police, as I am sure it will be, consistency will be achieved in advance of the introduction of the Crown Prosecutions Service, to which the noble Lord is looking forward. May I also take this opportunity to echo on behalf of your Lordships the words of appreciation to the police which were made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich?
In coming to a conclusion I should remind your Lordships that the Video Recordings Act is widely supported both in Parliament and outside. It responds to the real public concern about video nasties and I believe that the publicity which it generated was an important factor in helping to stem the availability of that material. It also establishes a classification system which will provide guidance about the suitability of video works for different age groups. I am particularly grateful to the noble, Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his warm support of the proposed regulations.
I have tried to pick up some of the more general points made during the debate. I will write to noble Lords whose questions have not been answered in my reply. But the decision which now has to be made is not about the Act—that is already on the statute book—but about the orders to bring it into effect. Noble Lords will appreciate that if the proposed designation were to be rejected, fresh proposals would have to lie before Parliament for a further 40 days, excluding the Recess, before a designation could be made. That would take us well into the autumn and would delay the implementation of the Act by several months. Such a delay would be contrary to the wishes of the great majority of your Lordships and of the general public and I believe it would also be contrary to the interests of the video industry.
The Government have every confidence that the

1083
British Board of Film Classification will continue the good work for which it is widely recognised as it now takes on responsibility for the classification of video recordings. All concerned appreciate the importance and sensitivity of this new responsibility. Parliament will be kept informed by means of the annual reports which will be required to be laid before each House. The British Board of Film Classification is determined to make these new arrangements work and I am sure that we all wish it well.
I conclude by saying that am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for enabling us to discuss these important matters. I hope that I have been able to provide him with some of the reassurance he was seeking and I am pleased to commend to the House both the proposed designation of the president and vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification and the regulations on the labelling of video recordings and their containers.
9.54 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am sure the best service I can do for the House at this hour is to keep my concluding remarks as brief as possible. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, whether or not I agreed with what they said. It was probably unavoidable that I and others should rehearse some of the arguments that we used in the course of the passage of the Bill. It is difficult to confine oneself wholly to the administration and the nitty-gritty of the scheme when there is this emotional background on both sides. All I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and others who have been a little concerned at my working-class overtones, if I may put it that way, is that we are a democracy and democracy involves participation. That is all I am pleading for. I know it is only classification, although there are marginal qualifications to that. After all, part of classification is to exclude things from classification altogether and expose them to the rigours of the criminal law.
However, I am not saying for a moment that the opinions of some people are better than those of others. When my noble friend Lord Mishcon says that what people want to know is what sort of video it is, the answer is that it depends upon a person's opinion. What sort of video it is, is a matter of opinion, very largely; and opinions can differ. All I have been advocating is the presence of something that is not there in any of the bodies connected with the administration of this Act. The voice of the people, I think, should be represented there. Their opinions may be no better than those of others, or not as good; but participation means that people who are concerned should be there, and they are not there. That is what I am saying. It is an important thing to say, nevertheless.
I think that democracy should be seen in all our institutions. The representativeness of institutions should be visible when we are doing things of this kind. But I leave that now. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for so much that she has said and I wish to stress the special value of this debate at this moment. It is the only occasion upon which opinions, facts and predictions of the noble Baroness can be read just now about the working of the Act. That is going to be of
1084
great value and I shall be very surprised if today's debate is not widely and anxiously scanned in a number of quarters for guidance as to their own part in the matter for the future administration of the Act.
I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about the use of the Obscene Publications Act. That has been very tiresome indeed and has put a lot of people to a great deal of anxiety and a great deal of expense. I am sure that what the noble Baroness has foretold in this regard will be widely welcomed and I am sure that if that is done we shall cease to have, in this field at any rate, many of the complaints about the use of the Obscene Publications Act that I am getting at the moment.
I am grateful for all that and I am very much obliged to all who have taken part in the debate There is nothing in this Act that my noble friend Lord Mishcon has raised that I object to. I thought that we had accepted tacitly, if not overtly, the classifications that were being used by the British Board of Film Censors and that they are being translated into the field of video. I think that they are generally acceptable as having gone through a fairly long period of experience and tests. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the first of the two Motions on the Order Paper.
Motion, by leave withdrawn.

Revised Proposals for Designation of Persons as Authority to Determine the Suitability of Video Works for Classification
Lord Houghton of Sowerbyhad given notice of his intention to move, That the revised proposals for designation of persons as authority to determine the suitability of video works for classification, laid before the House on 14th June, should not be made.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Dartmoor Commons Bill Lincoln City Council Bill
Returned from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Friday last agreed to with amendments; the amendments printed pursuant to Standing Order 48.
East Lothian District Council (Musselburgh Links etc.) Order Confirmation Bill Shetland Islands Council Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.
British Railways (Trowse Bridge) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.

Social Security Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before ten o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  CHIROPRACTIC AND THE NHS
  CHIROPRACTIC AND THE NHS
  RAF VOLUNTEER RESERVISTS' SCHEME
  RAF VOLUNTEER RESERVISTS' SCHEME
  TOURISM AND LEISURE: REPORT
  TOURISM AND LEISURE: REPORT
  MIDDLE EAST: NUCLEAR WEAPON-FREE ZONE PROPOSAL
  MIDDLE EAST: NUCLEAR WEAPON-FREE ZONE PROPOSAL
  AFGHANISTAN: UN ACTION ON SOVIET INVASION
  AFGHANISTAN: UN ACTION ON SOVIET INVASION
  MR. IAN BRADY
  MR. IAN BRADY
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES ORDER, JUNE 1985
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES ORDER, JUNE 1985
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD:
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD: