Sitting of 6 June 1985

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  C-POULTRY COMPANY LIMITED BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed
  ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND BILL (By Order)
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  BATH CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment
  PLYMOUTH MARINE EVENTS BASE BILL (By Order)
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 13 June

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Temporary Admissions
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom absconded in 1984; and what percentage this is of those so admitted.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): In 1984 a total of 8,527 passengers were given temporary admission either pending further examination or after refusal of leave to enter. Of these, 187 or just over 2 per cent absconded.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Tamils fleeing persecution would make as good citizens of this country as the children of the Lithuanians who fled from their country a generation ago?
    Mr. Waddington: The matter raised by the hon. Lady is of great importance, but it goes very wide of this question. A short time ago we announced what we think is a fair policy towards Tamils. First, we shall acknowledge and honour our obligations under the United Nations convention on refugees. Secondly, we have said that we shall not send back any Tamil who would suffer severe hardship if returned.
    Ms. Clare Short: In view of those figures, does the Minister agree that his officials are refusing to let many genuine visitors into this country and putting them in the humiliating position of being detained at airports and
    424
    having to seek out a Member of Parliament in order to get
    permission to see their relatives? Does the hon. and
    learned Gentleman also agree that we should—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about absconding. Is not this matter a little wide of the question?
    Ms. Short: No, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady may proceed.
    Ms. Short: It is absolutely in order.
    Mr. Speaker: With respect, I decide that.
    Mr. Waddington: I am always willing to oblige, Mr. Speaker. Some might say that the low level of absconding confirms the judgment of immigration officers in granting temporary admission. It is somewhat illogical to argue that, because people have not absconded, they must have qualified for entry as visitors and therefore were wrongly refused entry.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman
    confirm that last Tuesday evening, for the first lime, a
    Tamil who had sought asylum in this country was returned
    direct to Sri Lanka and that that occurred because of an
    administrative muddle by Home Office officials? Will the
    hon. and learned Gentleman now say categorically—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules apply to the Front Bench as to the Back Bench. That question would more correctly be asked on question No. 8.
    Mr. Dubs: The issue concerns a person who, I believe, was held in custody to prevent him absconding.
    Mr. Speaker: The point is that he did not abscond.

    Police Forces (Strength)
    Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present manning levels of police forces.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. Leon Brittan): There were 120,364 police officers and 39,299 civilian staff in England and Wales on 30 April. This was a total increase of 12,919 since May 1979; it was also an increase of 461 since March of this year.
    Mr. Hunter: I applaud the professionalism and dedication of the police and welcome the measures that the Government have taken to increase manpower, but the fact remains that the burden of responsibility and duty that the police must now shoulder has increased significantly since 1979. In some parts of the country there appears to be little more than a minimum level of effective policing. Will the Government give urgent consideration to a further increase in police manpower?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree that the burdens on the police since 1979 have increased, and it is for exactly that reason that the numbers of police have been increased.
    With regard to the position in particular parts of the country, obviously I consider applications for increases in police establishment on their merits.
    Mr. Dobson: If there are sufficient police, why have the numbers of crimes increased from 2.5 million in 1979 to 3.5 million in 1984?
    Mr. Brittan: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows enough about the causes of crime to realise that they relate

    425
    as much to what criminals do as to the presence of policemen. Were it not for the strengthening of the forces of law and order, I have no doubt whatever that, with the increase in crime that is occurring all over the Western world, crime would be far worse in this country.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in cases recently brought to my attention, there has been a delay of over 15 minutes in response to an emergency call before even one police officer has arrived on the scene? Obviously, further action, such as an arrest, is precluded until reinforcements arrive. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a reflection of inadequate manning levels and that the public should be assured that they will have a prompt and efficient response to any emergency call?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree that it is important that emergency calls should be dealt with on an emergency basis. My hon. Friend obviously has a particular case in mind. If she would like to get in touch with me, I shall look into it and see what went wrong.
    Mr. Soley: Given that the Home Secretary thinks that he has done so much for the police in manning and other areas, why does he think that he received such a hostile reception at the police conference?
    Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman might like to compare that response with the one that his right hon. Friend received.
    Mr. Hayes: I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend is committed to doing everything he can to ensure that we have an efficient and effective police force, but is he aware that there is widespread concern among officers in the metropolis that the present restrictions on overtime may be hampering inquiries? Will he investigate those allegations?
    Mr. Brittan: It is important that the police should operate efficiently. I think that the measures that the commissioner has introduced to regulate overtime are an important part of the process of ensuring that the police do operate efficiently.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many miners arrested during the miners' strike are still in prison; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): The occupation of prisoners is not recorded centrally.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that during the miners' strike most Ministers talked of the strike as being a political strike? If that is the case, those miners who are still in prison are political prisoners. If it is in order for Ministers to trot over to east European countries and claim that there are political prisoners there who should be brought out, surely it is right for Labour Members to call for an amnesty for those miners who are in prison. Would the Minister not be better disposed rounding up the crooks at Johnson Matthey who have been giving out backhanders in order to get £75 million in rescue deals?
    Mr. Mellor: The logical powers of the hon. Gentleman make those of Lewis Carroll and Edward Lear appear positively prosaic by comparison.

    Shoplifting
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the
    Home Department how many people tried on indictment
    for shoplifting in 1983, 1984, and 1985, respectively,
    were acquitted.
    Mr. Mellor: In England and Wales in 1983, 1,133 persons were acquitted in the Crown court of theft from shops, and 3,362 were found guilty. Corresponding information for 1984 and 1985 is not yet available.
    Mr. Janner: As I am sure the Minister will agree, the situation in this area of law and practice is totally unsatisfactory. Will he confirm that when the new independent prosecution service comes into operation the prosecution of accused shoplifters will no longer be left to shopkeepers, and that meanwhile he will give instructions to the police to follow the same sort of procedures when deciding whom to prosecute—where they do—as are now followed successfully and well in areas such as Essex and Leicester?
    Mr. Mellor: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest, which I share, in this matter. I am happy to confirm that one of the many beneficial consequences of the new independent prosecution system will be that in the one area of the country where prosecutions for these offences are habitually undertaken by the stores—that is, in Greater London—prosecutions will be taken over for the most part by the independent prosecution service. The hon. and learned Gentleman will welcome the fact that in the circular sent out by the Home Office in February about cautioning, particular attention was drawn to the importance of cautioning in relation to vulnerable elderly offenders. He will also be interested to know that of the number of offenders over 60 cautioned and found guilty, the proportion cautioned increased from 48 per cent. in 1980 to 61 per cent. in 1983. The circular will probably lead to an increase in those figures.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that as long ago as 1972 I had my first Adjournment debate on this subject, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) accepted that there was a direct link between the increasing number of self-service stores and the increase in shoplifting? Does the Home Office accept that where trading methods cause crime, that cause and effect should not be ignored by society?
    Mr. Mellor: The issue of prevention is crucial and we continue to have well in mind the point that my hon. Friend makes.

    Primary Purpose Rule
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for the Home
    Department if he will publish the instructions to entry
    certificate officers regarding the primary purpose rule.
    Mr. SimonHughes asked the Secretary of State for
    the Home Department whether he will now introduce
    legislation to abolish the primary purpose rule for financés
    and husbands wishing to join partners in the United
    Kingdom.
    Mr. Waddington: I will, with permission, answer this question and question No. 6 together.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can these two questions be answered by the Home Secretary rather than by an Under-Secretary?
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order for me. Who answers questions is a matter for the Department concerned.
    Mr. Waddington: Instructions to immigration staff are being reviewed, in the course of which the extent to which they can be published will be considered. The issue of guidance to entry clearance officers is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Government do not intend to abolish the primary purpose test.
    Mr. Pike: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this rule causes more difficulties than most other aspects of immigration policy? In view of the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights, may we have an assurance that, when changes are made, men coming into the country will be treated on the same basis as women coming here? Is the Minister further aware that that does not mean any change being made adversely? We want change in the right direction, so that the position as it now applies to women is extended to men.
    Mr. Waddington: It would be absurd if, having tightened up the work permit system to prevent young men coming here and going on to the labour market, we were to allow those same young men to come here by using marriage as a device. The judgment to which the hon. Gentleman refers does not directly concern the primary purpose rule, but obviously we are now considering the whole position in the light of the judgment and will announce our conclusions in due course.
    Mr. Hughes: Perhaps one day the Home Secretary will take some responsibility for these matters. In the meantime, will the Government respond — as the Government, whom they assert they are, of law and order —by obeying the 12th finding against this country by the European Court of Human Rights? As the Government, as they assert they are, of the family, will they allow husbands and fiances to come to this country with their families? As the Government, as they assert they are, of equal opportunity, will they ensure that we have a new set of immigration laws before the House rises for the summer? May we also be assured that nobody who is at present in breach of the rules which have been found to be contrary to human rights is penalised, and that that will apply from the date of the Strasbourg ruling?
    Mr. Waddington: It seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that we first accepted the right of individual petition to the court back in 1966. Only in 1981 did France accept that right. In those circumstances, and as many other countries still do not accept the right of individual petition to the court, it is not surprising that more judgments have been made against the British Government than against other Governments.
    The country would be immensely surprised if, having willed a firm and fair immigration control, we now took the view that anybody who enters into a marriage, irrespective of whether that marriage is entered into for immigration purposes, should be able to come here.
    Mr. Stanbrook: On the question of the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, are the Government content that a group of unelected foreigners should legislate for this country on matters of political and social importance?
    Mr. Waddington: We adhere to the convention and we shall abide by it. We shall make rule changes, but my hon. Friend will have to be patient, because we shall have to study the judgment carefully.
    Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the primary purpose rule is an essential safeguard for many brides, such as those in my constituency, about whom I have written to my hon. Friend, who were abandoned by their husbands when the two-year period necessary for their husbands to have an unlimited right to remain here expired?
    Mr. Waddington: The justification for the primary purpose rule is that it is a necessary part of our immigration control, but we should be stupid not to recognise that social problems are involved. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to hint at them today. We all know of cases where the primary purpose rule has been a safeguard for young women here.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that he made an astonishing blunder in answering an earlier question this afternoon? Is he further aware—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask that. We have passed that question.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that he made an astonishing blunder in answering a question just a moment ago? Is he further aware that he said that he was considering what to do about the European Court decision, yet earlier he said that the Government did not intend to abolish the primary purpose test? As the primary purpose test was the subject of the condemnation of our immigration practices by the European Court, because it is a key element in sex discrimination, how can the Minister say that he is open-minded and considering the result? He has already said that he has made up his mind.
    Mr. Waddington: The judgment does not directly concern the primary purpose rule. I repeat that we shall study the judgment with care. and do that which is necessary.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), but I got the meaning of his question wrong.

    Sports Facilities (Safety)
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the implications for safety and security at other sports facilities in the light of the disaster at Bradford City association football club.
    Mr. Brittan: While those will in the longer term be matters upon which the Government will look to Mr. Justice Popplewell's inquiry for advice, I have taken the following immediate steps as a result of my statement on 13 May. First, chief fire officers were asked on 16 May as a matter of urgency to visit all uncertificated sports stadia within the definition of the 1975 Act and to advise management on any necessary safety measures.
    Secondly, on 23 May, consultation letters were sent to the football authorities and other interested parties on the timetable for designation of the third and fourth division Football League grounds, which I had promised would be put in hand immediately.

    429
    Thirdly, on the same day, I announced to the Rugby League my intention also to extend designation, although not necessarily on the same time scale, to the grounds of clubs in divisions 1 and 2 of the Rugby League.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. How long will he give the clubs before they are expected to implement the Prime Minister's recommendations on personal security cards, the security of grounds and segregation? Will he be entering into talks, even if informal, with the organisers of sports in other grounds? What response—
    Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is not in order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) must keep in order.
    Mr. Alton: I am in order, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary question is in order.
    What response will the Home Secretary. give to those clubs which have asked for funds to carry out much needed improvements to their grounds?
    Mr. Brittan: I think that the question of cards and other such matters go beyond the question, but those matters are being actively discussed with the football authorities. On the question of funds, the hon. Gentleman will recall what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday.
    Mr. Waller: While it appears certain that association football clubs can do something to make their grounds safer through funds available from the Football Grounds Improvement Trust, will my right hon. and learned Friend consult his right hon. and hon. Friends about the particular problems of Rugby League clubs, many of which have old wooden stands, but, unfortunately, no similar recourse to funds?
    Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport will be considering with the Rugby League the implications of the proposed extension of designation to the grounds of clubs in divisions 1 and 2 of the Rugby League. My hon. Friend will recall my reference to the difference in the time scales for football and rugby.
    I stress that clubs have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the public, in the same way as the operators of any place of entertainment have that responsibility.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the Home Secretary explain to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that there is a great difference between someone unfortunately dropping a matchstick and setting a stand on fire in Bradford, and football hooliganism? Will he also explain to him that it is about time he stopped using the House of Commons for his abusive activities, as he does in relation to all subjects, rather than dealing with the issue?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I should use the opportunity of such a serious question to intervene in an intra-Liverpool dispute. Although broadly I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, there is a relationship between security and safety. It is for exactly that reason that I asked Mr. Justice Popplewell to look at both aspects of the matter. It does not take long for the House to consider the locking of exits, for example, to realise the connection.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: While very much welcoming what my right hon. and learned Friend has said—that it is the responsibility of football clubs to ensure the safety and security of those who go to their grounds—may I ask him to pay particular regard to the implications for police manpower of any of the changes that may be proposed? Will he also offer to the House his view on the point that football clubs might spend a little less money on the transfer of players and a little more on safety at their grounds?
    Mr. Brittan: I shall draw my hon. Friend's second point to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. I hope that any changes that are introduced following the examination of these tragic matters will take full account of police manpower and will ease rather than add to the burdens on the police.
    Mr. Torney: Will the Home Secretary further consider the suggestion that I made in my speech immediately after the Bradford city football ground fire, that sprinkler systems should be installed in all football grounds and in all other places of a similar nature and that orders should be given that doors must not be locked while large numbers of people are inside? Does he agree that if sprinklers had been in place inside Bradford city football ground the death toll and the number of injuries would have been much lower?
    Mr. Brittan: I ought not to speculate upon the hon. Gentleman's last point. However, I agree that both of the points to which he has referred will need to be considered in the light of the findings of Mr. Justice Popplewell in his interim report.
    Mr. Tony Banks: While the designation of third and fourth division football grounds is to be welcomed, can the Home Secretary tell the House whether his colleagues are discussing the possibility of making loans available to league clubs to carry out the necessary safety improvements? If not, designation will result in the closing of a number of third and fourth division grounds.
    Mr. Brittan: I have already explained that the financing of such safety measures as have been taken or are to be taken to improve spectator safety is being considered by the working group under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. The surveyors of the Football Grounds Improvement Trust are assessing the likely cost. Until that process has been completed it would not be sensible to make any judgments.

    Immigration Act 1971
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to repeal the Immigration Act 1971.
    Mr. Brittan: No, Sir.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his succinct answer. Does he agree that to repeal the Immigration Act 1971 would be disastrous both in terms of employment and community relations, not least for the members of the immigrant community? Is it not completely irresponsible of the Labour party to make such a proposal?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree with every single word of my hon. Friend. The continuation of firm but fair immigration control is crucial for race relations, as for many other aspects of our national life.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Home Secretary aware that serious abuses of the Immigration Act 1971 are taking place and that the procedures he has announced during the last two weeks concerning the treatment of Tamil refugees seeking asylum in this country have met with enormous opposition from Members of Parliament and from all of the immigration advisory agencies and refugee agencies? Is he further aware that the 24-hour rule for Members of Parliament, concerning the time in which they can make representations, is completely inadequate, and that until Tuesday of this week the immigration officers at Gatwick airport were unaware that they had to inform the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service of any refugee-seekers arriving in this country? Furthermore, is the Home Secretary aware that on Tuesday of this week a Tamil asylum seeker was removed extra-judicially from this country to Colombo, that his whereabouts are unknown and that it is incumbent upon the Home Secretary to tell the House what has happened to that man, why he was removed and what steps are being taken to ensure that he is returned safely to this country? An inquiry ought to be mounted into the whole affair.
    Mr. Brittan: The only point that has not been widely canvassed in the statement that I made last Monday to the House is the hon. Gentleman's last point. The particular case to which he referred was considered in great detail. We concluded that it did not meet the requirements of the United Nations' convention and that the test of severe hardship had not been met.
    Mr. Corbyn: Where is he?
    Mr. Brittan: In accordance with the administrative practice whereby the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service has been informed of cases where asylum is refused—
    Mr. Corbyn: Is he still alive?
    Mr. Brittan: —it was given the opportunity to interview the person in question and it did so, but before the results of that interview and any representations were received he was removed to Colombo. This action was the result of a serious failure in communication. I have ordered an urgent and thorough investigation both into the organisational failure and into the actions of the individual members of staff involved.
    The high commission in Colombo has been asked to contact the person in question, whose brother lives in Colombo. However, it is important to stress that I have no reason to doubt at present that the decision arrived at in his case was correct and in accordance with the policy that I announced. Nevertheless, the representations from UKIAS will be fully considered. If the judgment made in the light of that consideration is that the person in question meets the severe hardship test, contrary to the judgment that was previously formed, he will be granted a visa and returned to this country at public expense.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a basic right of every country to define who its citizens are and then to enforce the
    432
    appropriate immigration rules? Is he aware that many of the countries which criticise Britain have much more restrictive citizenship and immigration rules?
    Mr. Brittan: My hon Friend is absolutely right on both points
    Mr. Kaufman: With regard to the extraordinary admission that the Home Secretary has just made in response to a question from my hon Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr Corbyn), can the right hon and learned Gentleman now tell the House what action is being taken to ensure that such a thing does not happen again? [Interruption ] It happened once, although the Government said that there was no danger of it happening, because the Home Secretary does not care about these matters He does not care that people may be sent back to imprisonment, torture and death, after which it is too late to put things right That is why we want an assurance that the Government will ensure that nothing like this will happen again, and that a further statement will be made to the House about it That is what we seek
    Mr. Brittan: The hon Member for Islington, North (Mr Corbyn) raised a serious point about a particular case He has been in no way assisted by the right hon Gentleman's note of hysteria I attempted to deal with that question in a serious way The position is exactly as I said it was last Monday, and I assure the right hon Gentleman and the House that the administrative practice followed since 1983, whereby UKIAS is informed of cases where asylum is refused, and is given the opportunity to make representations before anyone is returned, will be followed I have taken the strongest steps to ensure that it will be followed in all cases I should have thought that the right hon Gentleman might at least have the grace to accept that I gave a very frank and full statement to the House about what happened

    Metropolitan Police
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the setting up of a study commission for the purpose of assessing the possibility of transferring control of the Metropolitan police to an elected body
    Mr. Brittan: No, Sir
    Mr. Atkinson: Why does the Home Secretary so tenaciously resist the demands of Londoners to democratise the accountability of the Metropolitan police9 He has authorised the expenditure of about £760 million He is now setting up consultative committees which, he says, have no right to intervene in the non-operative affairs of the London police or to interfere in policy matters so they can say nothing about that expenditure—justified or not—of £760 million
    Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with the hon Gentleman's suggestion, because nothing could be more dangerous to the liberties of this country than to hand over the police of London to political control
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon and learned Friend continue to uphold the constitutional independence of chief officers of police, not only in London but throughout the country?
    Mr. Brittan: Certainly The principle applies throughout the country
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Home Secretary is not willing to consider handing the police in London over to an elected authority, will he consider handing them over to at least a partly elected authority, in line with the discussions going on about other powers in the context of the GLC abolition Bill being considered in the other place between Ministers and Conservative peers?
    Mr. Brittan: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, but I do not propose any changes in the arrangements for the policing of London.

    America (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Sackvilleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the visit by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the United States of America to study techniques for the prevention of drug abuse.
    Mr. Mellor: I visited the United States from 7 to 14 April. I had very useful discussions with, among others, representatives of several Federal Departments and agencies. These ranged over many issues, including the forefeiture of drug traffickers' assets, American experience of the cocaine problem and international aspects.
    Mr. Sackville: Did my hon. Friend's visit convince him that the drugs problem, particularly with cocaine, can become considerably worse here, and shows signs of doing so, and that the various radical actions that he proposes should be taken now and not delayed until it is too late?
    Mr. Mellor: Since returning from the United States, I have tried to play a full part in alerting the public to the problem of the glut of cocaine available in South America and likely to be diverted from the American to the British market. Already, a considerable response has been evident, notably in the formation of two customs teams specifically to deal with cocaine. Cocaine seizures this year are much higher than they were last year. That is a measure of success, but we intend to be diligent on this vital topic.
    Mr. Pavitt: Did the Minister examine what is happening in Florida with the treatment of misusers of drugs—cocaine in particular—who need rehabilitation? Will he discuss with the Secretary of State for Social Services the present cut in the provision of clinics for the treatment of those who, unfortunately, become addicts?
    Mr. Mellor: Far from there being a cut, there has been an increase in such facilities, brought about by the allocation of £11.5 million from the DHSS and the encouragement that my right hon. Friend has been giving to regional and district health authorities to develop these facilities. He is requiring them to send details of their proposals to the Department, and their responses will be published shortly so that the public can judge the adequacy of the response of each individual health district to this important problem.
    Miss Fookes: I urge on my hon. Friend the importance of hitting drug traffickers where it hurts—in the pocket. To that end, can we have the hope of early legislation for forfeiture of assets and for dealing with money laundering?
    Mr. Mellor: These are matters of first importance, not just to my hon. Friend, but to the Government. I assure her that we are actively considering, and reaching final conclusions on, legislation to do what she requires.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: How does the Minister explain the more than 400 per cent. increase in drug addiction since the Government came into office?
    Mr. Mellor: By the fact that more people are taking drugs. The problem is well known throughout the Western world. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is trying to reduce the quality of what is otherwise a non-partisan debate to make spurious political points. The increase in drug-taking straddled two Governments and will not be resolved by the petty points that the hon. Gentleman delights in making.

    Detention Centres
    Mr. Berminghamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an independent inquiry into the operation of detention centres.
    Mr. Waddington: We have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Bermingham: Do not the growing number of complaints from parents, probation officers, teachers, solicitors and other people who have any connection with the inmates of detention centres, and the growing numbers of allegations of bullying and brutal treatment within those centres, mean that it is time the Government took such complaints seriously and established an inquiry to ascertain whether the short, sharp shock treatment is nothing more than a prescription for public bullying?
    Mr. Waddington: All allegations of ill-treatment are fully and properly investigated. If the allegation is of a criminal offence, it is referred to the police for investigation, and there is no need for a more wide-ranging inquiry. I gather that the hon. Gentleman made an allegation to a newspaper about Usk, but no complaints have been received there from any inmates. Therefore, it is up to the hon. Gentleman, if he has evidence—
    Mr. Bermingham: I have.
    Mr. Waddington: —of improper conduct to bring it forward.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Forthasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I will be attending a dinner given by Premier Zhao Ziyang of the People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Forth: When my right hon. Friend goes to Milan on 28–29 June for the European Council meeting, she will find that the agenda includes the Dooge report, which recommends a conference of representatives of member states to negotiate a European union treaty. Since the Dooge report says that such a conference in itself would be the initial stage of such a treaty, will my right hon.

    435
    Friend decline to send a representative, on the ground that there is no support in this House or in the country for further European union?
    The Prime Minister: I have often spoken about European union. The phrase is understood in this country in a totally different context from that in Europe. I wish that people would not use it. In this country it raises fear of federation. It is not used in that way in Europe. I would be absolutely against a federal Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend about a special intergovernmental conference. I think that it would be superfluous. I know that some of my colleagues in Europe would like to have it, but if we consider the European Council itself, it is an intergovernmental conference and we do not need an extra one.
    Mr. Kinnock: On Tuesday the Prime Minister told us that she wanted to be factual about the implications of the social security review. Will she now act upon that and tell us how many million householders will lose as a consequence of the changes proposed in housing benefit and, of those, how many are likely to be people with small occupational pensions who are to be penalised for a lifetime of thrift?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the reply that I gave. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services pointed out that the cost of housing benefit had gone up from £1.2 billion in 1979-80 to £4.2 billion this year, he indicated that we were hoping to save some £500 million from housing benefit. We cannot be more specific until the many rates are set much later.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why will the Prime Minister not answer the question? We know that she has the information. We know that the DHSS and the Cabinet have the information. The housing benefit review team said in its own paper that it was satisfied that despite all the complexities it had "a reliable indication of the major effects" of the changes being proposed. That is what we have asked for—a reliable indication. That is what the millions of people who will be affected want. Why will the Prime Minister not come clean?
    The Prime Minister: I have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman that savings of £500 million are hoped for. That is only one sixth of the increase that has occurred in housing benefit between 1979 and 1984. That seems to me eminently reasonable. The precise effect on the many people will be known when the specific rates are set, and particularly when the decisions with regard to rates are made.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister know whether the number affected will be 6 million, 6·5 million, 7 million or more? Can the Prime Minister give us a figure even to the nearest half million?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated—perhaps I should reiterate it to the right hon. Gentleman — that taxpayers' expenditure — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman always forgets that all the money he would give away comes from the pockets of his constituents. Taxpayers' expenditure on housing benefit has risen from £1.2 billion in 1979 to £4.2 billion—[Interruption. ]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is answering a very serious question.
    Hon. Members: No, she is not.
    Mr. Speaker: I take it that it is a serious question.
    The Prime Minister: Taxpayers' expenditure on housing benefit has risen from £1·2 billion in 1979 to £4·2 billion this year. That is an enormous increase. We hope to save something like £500 million, which is only one sixth of the increase that has occurred in our time. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the taxpayers of this country could not afford his programmes.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever decision is made by the United States Congress on disinvestment with South Africa, this Government will continue to encourage investment and trade with that country, not only for the 150,000 or so jobs that it generates over here, but for the sake of the underprivileged blacks in South Africa itself, for whom disinvestment would cause great harm and distress?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the moves in Congress. Several different Bills are under consideration. We cannot speculate on the outcome. It remains our view that sanctions and disinvestment will not bring about the changes that we all wish to see in South Africa.
    Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the decision today by FIFA to ban all English clubs from all international football matches? Does she agree that that is a wholly justified decision, which gives us a proper opportunity to put our own house in order?
    The Prime Minister: That is the decision that FIFA has made. I think that we fully understand why it has made it. I hope that we shall be able to take steps that will restore our good name both at home and in international football.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Prime Minister spare a moment this afternoon—I am sure that she will—to convey to her Chief Whip an expression of the delight which today's news has caused in all parts of the House?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman most warmly, and I am grateful for the response that his question has evoked from all parts of the House.
    Mr. Terry Davisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davis: Was the Prime Minister consulted about the disgraceful decision to announce the Government's decision on nurses' pay by means of a written answer? Does she really think that a written answer is more appropriate than a statement in the House on a matter of such interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House?
    The Prime Minister: Since 1979 the decisions on review body reports have normally been announced by written answer. Under Labour, it was the normal practice for decisions to be announced by written answer.
    Mr. Baldry: Does not the scale of starvation in Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa demonstrate the need for a continuing, co-ordinated international response to solving the problem of starvation in Africa? As both the Uniied States and Russia have been somewhat partisan in wanting to establish spheres of influence in north Africa, does not

    437
    that give Britain a marvellous opportunity to take a positive lead in the United Nations to try to ensure that we can eliminate starvation from the world by the year 2000?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have announced that we are sending an extra Hercules to the Sudan. We have provided some money for a light aircraft. We are also taking part in European action to try to get more of the food well distributed in the Sudan. I take my hon. Friend's point about taking the lead in the United Nations. The United States has also been generous in the food that it is planning to send to the Sudan.
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the report by the independent firm of City accountants, Coopers and Lybrand, which shows that the transitional cost for the abolition of the Greater London council ranges between £122 million and £167 million? In view of that enormous cost and the defeats that her Government's Bill is now experiencing in the House of Lords, will she take this opportunity to drop her personal and vindictive campaign against the GLC, sack her Secretary of State for the Environment at the next reshuffle and accompany me across Westminster bridge to make her peace with Ken Livingstone and the GLC?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the report estimates the transitional costs of change that arise from redundancy payments, which would occur in any event if the GLC chose to run its affairs efficiently. The report to which the hon. Gentleman has kindly drawn attention also shows that annual savings will flow from the abolition of the GLC and that the GLC is grossly overmanned at present.
    Mr. Eggarasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is so concerned about the cost of the GLC, why does he not offer to abandon his chauffeur-driven limousine?
    Mr. Tony Banks: Because it is too comfortable.
    The Prime Minister: I am not responsible for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister be in the House to vote against the outrageous motion that will be before the House tomorrow? If not, would she care to tell the House whether she supports her right hon. Friend and colleague the Leader of the House in that matter?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I shall be around, but whether I shall be around when the vote occurs I cannot tell, because I have two or three overseas visitors to see.
    Mr. Yeoasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anyone who knows anything about the social security system—a category of people which unfortunately does not include the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) — knows that the overwhelming requirement is for a system which is simpler and more understandable to those who use it and which directs more of the expenditure to those in real need? Is she aware that, accordingly, the proposals announced by the Government on Monday have been very warmly welcomed?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposals have been warmly welcomed. They are also very realistic. I agree that we should have benefits which we are satisfied a future Government can deliver, and not the empty promises that we get from the Opposition.
    Mr. Altonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister aware that Sir John Hermon, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, has not met his opposite number, Laurence Wren, Chief of the Garda, in the past two years? Does she agree that public recriminations between the two men does not assist the fight against terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: Consultations between the Garda and the RUC do not necessarily have to be conducted at the top level. The consultations are conducted very well and co-operation is close, for which we are very grateful.
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to deny press reports suggesting that the Government may be going cool on the introduction of legislation relating to the Green Paper on compulsory tendering for local authorities?
    The Prime Minister: The Government are very anxious that more competition should be introduced into local authority contracts. That is our policy and it will continue to be so.
    Mr. James Callaghan: If the Prime Minister is in the House tomorrow, will she be able, as I hope, to vote with me against the proposed abuse of procedures?
    The Prime Minister: Many invitations have been thrust upon me from all parts of the House. I hope that I shall be around to respond to one of them.
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacKay: In the light of the tragic events in Brussels last week, does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the notable exception of the Cambridge case, the punishments meted out by the courts have been woefully inadequate and no deterrent whatever to football hooliganism?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the Cambridge case heralded a new era. I should also point out that the Court of Appeal had previously made it abundantly clear that,
    440
    in serious cases of violence at football grounds, the right sentence should be a prison sentence. I hope that that will be observed in all other courts.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn): Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 JUNE—Opposition Day (8th Allotted day, second part). A debate on the 15th anniversary of the Royal Assent to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Food and Environment Protection Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 11 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day). A debate titled "The need for urgent new measures to deal with famine and remedy the debt crisis in developing countries", followed by a debate titled "Government responsibility for the desperate plight of young people". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Remaining stages of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill [Lords].
Motion on Historic Churches (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE AND THURSDAY 13 JUNE — Debate on a motion to approve the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985, Cmnd. 9430.
FRIDAY 14 JUNE—A debate on the Government's policy for science which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 17 JUNE—A debate on a Government motion to approve the White Paper on airports policy, Cmnd. 9542.
Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the dissatisfaction with the fact that the nurses' pay award was announced in a written answer. Will he ensure that we have a statement at the earliest opportunity so that the Secretary of State for Social Services can be properly questioned on a matter that is important to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to the general public?
Secondly, has a date been fixed for a two-day debate in Government time on the so-called Fowler review? The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the reports in The Times and elsewhere that Whitehall sources have made it clear that it is part of the Government's tactics to keep the Opposition, the public and, presumably, Conservative Back-Bench Members in the dark about the impact of the changes. May we have his co-operation in initiating a debate so that we can lighten the darkness?
Thirdly, when may we have a statement on last week's decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that the Government have been unlawfully discriminating against husbands and male finances who wish to come to Britain? As he will recall, the Home Secretary dodged making a statement this week. Will he ensure that we get a statement next week so that the 3,350 men involved may have some idea of their future?
Fourthly, the Leader of the House will recall that we have been asking repeatedly for a debate in Government time on the proposed closure of 29 skillcentres. This week, we heard the announcement that all but two of those skillcentres will close — the two being in relatively marginal Conservative-held seats. Does the right hon.
442
Gentleman accept that the issue is now even more urgent and will he ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are given an early opportunity to debate the matter?
Fifthly, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the reports today of the Foreign Secretary's warning to the United States Government not to breach the 1979 strategic arms limitation treaty and so undermine the Geneva arms talks? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure an early statement to the House on this subject, and will he remember that the Opposition have asked several times for a debate on the straegic defence initiative which is clearly of interest to the House and to the country?
Finally, will he convey, through the usual channels, of course, my best wishes and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Government Chief Whip and his finance for their future happiness?
Mr. Biffen: I wholeheartedly reverse the order of the right hon. Gentleman's questions—I shall of course pass on those good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. I know, as does the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that, in doing that, I shall have the endorsement of the entire House.
As for the strategic arms limitation treaty, I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman's points. It raises all of the issues that are central to a discussion of the defence Estimates.
I suggest that we might consider the request for a debate about skillcentres through the usual channels. I shall refer my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement on the recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights as it affects the access to Britain of certain classes of immigrant.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's request for a two-day debate on the social security review. Perhaps the timing and length of that debate can be considered further through the usual channels, I was a little distressed to find that the right hon. Gentleman had to pray in aid evidence from The Times to sustain his case, but as he then asked for enlightenment I understood why he needed such remedy. Questions about nurses' pay can be examined through the usual channels, but I must observe that what has been done today is precisely what happened under the preceding Labour Government.
Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury): If the worse comes to the worst tomorrow and we find ourselves sitting through the weekend, how can I then return in happy plight that am debarred the benefit of rest? When life's—day's —oppression is not eased by night, and day by day— day by night—and night by day oppressed?
Mr. Biffen: If my hon. Friend rerehearses a little more that speech which he intends to give tomorrow, he may find by then that it is so effective that he need have no fear.
Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South): Will the Leader of the House find time for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement on the encouragement which I hope he is giving the Office of Fair Trading to block the takeover of Eurolex, the computer database of English, Scottish and European law, by Butterworths, which has closed it down and dismissed all the staff to create a world monopoly for the United States-owned Lexis service for which Butterworths acts merely

443
as the British agent? Is that not an outrageous demonstration of the Government's lack of any serious information technology policy?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the strictures implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question, but I shall refer his request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the heavy demand of right hon. and hon. Members to speak in last January's debate on airports policy and therefore consider extending the debate on Monday week at least until midnight so that many more of us can congratulate the Government on yesterday's excellent statement?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend advances a persuasive argument for the innovation that he seeks. The timing will be considered.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the change in immigration rules which requires visas from citizens of Sri Lanka who have come to Britain as refugees raises an important principle which is quite distinct from that raised by the other immigration matter that has been raised? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore find time for the prayer relating to the change that I have described which has been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends?
Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps the matter could be considered through the usual channels.
Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton): For the third week running, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health an offer that we hope he cannot refuse—to make a statement to the House on an appeal system regarding the limited list of drugs? The matter is now getting very urgent.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has made his point courteously and persistently, and I shall most certainly take it up again.
Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield): Will the Leader of the House impress upon the Prime Minister the need for a statement next week, after her meeting with King Hussein of Jordan and the Foreign Secretary of Israel, on their views on peace in the middle east and the role that the PLO will play as the representative of the Palestinians?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly pass on that request to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch): Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), in case he has not noticed, that the idea behind moving the sludge works at Perry Oaks is not to plant daisies? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the motion on Monday week is lost, progress at Stansted could not be made? Will my right hon. Friend make that clear?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's point obviously has a great deal of force. I should have thought that it would be much better deployed in the context of the debate rather than in trying to persuade me to put a shadow over the debate by giving an answer.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Knowsley, North): Given that those of us who have recently been in Sri Lanka have first hand and substantial evidence of brutality and the atrocities committed against the Tamil community and that many thousands of that minority community live in deep and serious fear of their physical safety and lives, may we have an early debate on the Government's inhumane and callous policy of refusing admission to refugees from that country, with all the horrendous consequences for their personal safety that flow from that policy?
Mr. Biffen: I realise that this subject gives rise to deep and sincere feelings. I shall report them to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but I cannot be optimistic and suggest that there will be an early debate.
Mr. John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lack of religious and moral teaching, discipline and, above all, parental responsibility are the main causes of so much of the violence in our society? Cannot we discuss these important and vital matters?
Mr. Biffen: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, but Government time will not be available for such a debate —certainly not in the near future. Hon. Members have other opportunities, and I suggest that they pursue them.
Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley): Will the right hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration to our request for a one-hour extension of the debate on Tuesday on the Northern Ireland order?
Mr. Biffen: Most certainly. Perhaps that matter could be considered through the usual channels.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): The House gave an overwhelming Second Reading to the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), but, despite that, many of us who voted in support of the Bill have distinct reservations about the tactics that will, apparently, be employed tomorrow. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his previous position on this matter and, even at this late hour, give an undertaking that Government time will be made available so that this important measure is given the proper consideration that it deserves?
Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which certainly was not planted. I want to make it quite clear— I want there to be no ambiguity about this — that there is no prospect of Government time being made available.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton (Fife, Central). What contingency plans has the right hon. Gentleman made for the House sitting on Saturday and Sunday? If this happens, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to ensure that those responsible will be surcharged?
Mr. Biffen: In order to give the most appropriate answer to that question, I would need more time for reflection than is available to me at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): As my right hon. Friend is a master not only of repartee but of parliamentary procedure, will he make it plain that what is contemplated and proposed by some of our colleagues for tomorrow is entirely proper and is not an abuse of the procedures of the House?
Mr. Biffen: It is far better if these arguments are adduced within the more relaxed circumstances of the

445
debate than in question and answer at this time. I can confirm that there seems to be clear evidence that the proposed action has been ruled to be in order.
Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East): In view of the announcement at about lunch time today by Imperial Tobacco plc that it intends to close its factory in east Newcastle with a loss of 600 jobs and that, in addition it intends to sack 1,100 people during the next two years, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a discussion on the employment problems faced by constituencies that rely upon the tobacco industry for employment?
Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but the hon. Gentleman may recall that employment questions will be dealt with next Tuesday.
Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar): Reverting to the debate on airports policy on Monday week, may we know the basis upon which it is to take place? If it is simply to take note of the White Paper and the House refuses so to do, will that mean that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to re-think the policy that he announced in the House yesterday?
Mr. Biffen: I have already indicated that the motion on Monday 17 June will be a Government motion to approve the White Paper.
Mr. James Lamond: Has the Leader of the House noticed that on several occasions recently the Secretary of State for the appropriate Department has not appeared at the Dispatch Box at Question Time? The latest example was on Tuesday of this week, when the Secretary of State for Defence was unable to be present because apparently he was on an official visit to Denmark.
Bearing in mind that Secretaries of State are required to be here for questions on only one day in a month, is it not possible for them to arrange their official visits so that they are not prevented from being here to answer questions?
Mr. Biffen: Obviously I would be the first to acquiesce in the proposition that it is important that Secretaries of State should, whenever possible, be here at the Dispatch Box to take their questions. I believe that that view is shared throughout the Administration. But there are occasions when it is not possible, and I think we have to understand that.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington): Does my right hon. Friend intend to speak tomorrow in the capacity that he recently described as "the boss's nark", or does he agree that Back Benchers are just as much entitled to use rules of order and procedure, without accusations of abuse, as are the Government who they are supposed to control?
Mr. Biffen: I shall speak as Leader of the House, and I shall try to tread as delicately as I can.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): If tomorrow's business ran through not only Saturday and Sunday but into Monday, will the Leader of the House confirm that, under the Standing Orders of the House, business could be adjourned after Monday till the following Monday? In those circumstances, does he intend to table a motion to avoid that eventuality?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that we have quite got to the point where I have to take that decision.
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford): Will my right hon. Friend take pity on Mr. Speaker and help him in relation to the debate on airports policy? There has not been adequate time, at any Question Time when the matter could be raised, for all of us to be heard. In particular, those who represent the area most affected by the decision, east Hertfordshire and Essex, have not had adequate time because, quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, has had to give time to hon. Members from other parts of the country with an interest in the matter.
My constituents are feeling very aggrieved that we have not had adequate time to point out to the House and to the country the very serious difficulties in which the decision places us. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend at least consider extending the debate by two hours?
Mr. Biffen: The request for an extension has already been made to me, and it will be sympathetically considered.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), the Leader of the House was his usual model of courtesy, but has he really understood the enormity of what has happened in relation to Butterworths and Eurolex? The computer data are going to the United States. Should not he, directly or through the Department of Trade, contact the Office of Fair Trading? Although only 53 jobs are involved at present, there is a huge potential job loss. Incidentally, Parliament is a major customer, and it looks as though Parliament's expenses in regard to Eurolex will be greatly increased by what has happened.
May I offer the Leader of the House a constructive suggestion? May I suggest that he should get the Minister for Trade to make a statement at 11 am tomorrow on the vital matter that my hon. Friend has raised?
Mr. Biffen: There is just a suspicion that having such a statement at 11 am tomorrow would be seen as trivialising the matter. There would be a possibility of its being misinterpreted. I shall, of course, convey to my right hon. Friend the anxieties of the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Mr. Gary Waller: Has my right hon. Friend taken note of early-day motion 714 concerning a Yorkshire Post investigation into drug abuse?
[That this House is concerned at the new evidence in Yorkshire of illegal drug trafficking and the involvement of young people in hard drug abuse; congratulates the Yorkshire Post on its detailed investigation into this urgent and serious problem; notes that the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Social Services are undertaking enquiries into drug abuse; and calls for an early Parliamentary debate on their proposals further to inhibit supply and to rehabilitate addicts.]
In view of the serious facts revealed by that investigation and the fact that this is one of the most significant issues of our time, will he arrange an early and full-length debate on the interim report of the Home Office Select Committee on the subject?
Mr. Biffen: I join my hon. Friend in acknowledging the importance of the topic. He will note, however, that no Government time has been made available for a debate

447
on the issue in the business that has been announced, and I do not see there being time available in the near future now that we are in that part of the parliamentary year just ahead of the summer recess. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that he can pursue these matters through private Members' time.
Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the decision by the House of Representatives in the United States in relation to South Africa and the exchanges today during Prime Minister's Question Time, does the Leader of the House agree that we should have an early opportunity to debate this issue?
Mr. Biffen: I have no doubt that it would be a good debate, but there is no Government time available in the near future.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 708, which stands in my name and the names of 20 other hon. Members, giving all-party support for the establishment of a missing child unit within the Home Office?
[That this House welcomes the designation of Saturday 25th May as International Day of the Missing Child; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to establish a missing child unit within the Home Office with a central computer detailing all missing children throughout the United Kingdom, and not just within the Metropolitan Police area.]
Is he aware that great concern is felt about the fact that last year more than 20,000 children went missing, yet inadequate, if any, statistics are kept about these cases? On the subject of children, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not take it personally when tomorrow more than 100 hon. Members in all parts of the House express their concern for the unborn child and do not support his objection to our motion. May I respectfully remind him that most hon. Members feel that tomorrow is a private Members' day and regret that any form of Government interference, even if indirectly, should occur?
Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's remarks in relation to tomorrow's debate. I also appreciate the significance of the first part of his question and hope that he will use his well known skill and initiative as a private Member in getting the issue debated. There simply is not Government time to cover all these issues.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen the statistics released by the Department of Employment to me this week showing that for this year's 517,000 school leavers there exist only 12,355 vacancies at careers offices? Is he aware that 56 per cent. of careers offices in Britain have 10 or fewer vacancies; that in Scotland the figure is 94 per cent.; that in Wales, only two careers offices have more than 10 vacancies; and that 95 per cent. of careers offices have fewer than 10 vacancies? When in Government time will there be a debate on the bleak and dismal future that the Tory Government are offering this year's school leavers?
Mr. Biffen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not regard Opposition time as second best, because on Tuesday there will be a debate on the subject of young people and I hope that he will be able to make a speech on that occasion.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Has the right hon. Gentleman been made aware during his especially busy
448
day today that the Arts Council held an emergency press conference this morning at which it announced that there would be a £30 million shortfall in the moneys needed to support the arts following the Government's messing about with the GLC and metropolitan counties? What do the Government intend to do to provide that necessary funding of £30 million?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that there will be a statement on that subject next week, but I shall draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who answers for the arts in the House, the situation described by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South): You, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House will be aware of the great interest that I have expressed over the years, both in the House and in Committee upstairs, in the National Health Service. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the need for a statement to be made next week on the question of nurses' pay? We shall not have time to table questions before the Minister for Health next answers questions in the House on Tuesday. After that, there will be only one further occasion when health questions will be answered before the summer recess.
The issue affects half a million nurses and midwives and yet the announcement is to be made in a written answer which I shall not be able to see until tomorrow morning. Will the right hon. Gentleman please do something for Back-Bench Members on this important matter?
Mr. Biffen: The Leader of the Opposition made a request about the way in which the matter should be handled and I said that it could be considered through the usual channels. I cannot go beyond that. However, the procedure this year is precisely the same as it has been for many years.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why do the Government persist in refusing to make a statement at the Dispatch Box on the loss of the Lear Fan company in Ulster? Why do they persist in replying only in written answers? What are they trying to hide? As a vast amount of public money is involved, should not the Minister be made accountable to the House by making a statement on which we can question him?
Mr. Biffen: I shall refer those remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Questions about Northern Ireland are first on the Order Paper next Thursday.
Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the persistent and regrettable failure of courts, and especially of tribunals, to take properly into account the statutory codes set by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, and of the exclusion from the protection of the law of single people, including widows and widowers, when can we have a debate in Government time on equal opportunities? Is the Leader of the House aware that inequality in many respects is growing in Britain?
Mr. Biffen: I see little prospect in the near future of such a debate in Government time because Government time is a rare and valued commodity at this time of year. The hon. and learned Gentleman has other opportunities to raise such matters in the House.

Opposition Day
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
Opposition Day

  Elderly Persons
  4 32 pm
  Mr.David Steel(Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): I beg to move,
  That this House, while recognising the need for a review of the social security system, rejects those parts of the Green Paper which are designed to cut costs and will therefore add greatly to the problems of many elderly people on low incomes by reducing their entitlement to help with the high cost of rent and rates, will eventually remove the state earnings-related pension scheme without substantially increasing the basic pension, and will replace a parsimonious death grant scheme with one likely to cause maximum distress at the time of bereavement.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Steel: As this is the first occasion on which the amended Standing Order No. 6 has been brought into use, and the minority parties have a chance to introduce a debate out of slightly more generous time than in the past, it would be churlish to let this opportunity go by without thanking the Leader of the House for enabling this reiorm to be made Needless to say, we are not satisfied that we are being given a fair deal, but this is a notable step forward, with the existence of something other than the official Opposition at last being recognised in the Standing Orders.
  I am pleased that my colleagues and I took the decision that our first use of this opportunity should be to have a debate on the problems of the elderly. We took that decision before the Whitsun recess knowing that the Green Paper on social security reform would be published before the debate Although the debate is not to be confined to that Green Paper, it provides the House with an early opportunity to probe the Government further on their intentions in that review.
  Bevendge once observed that if one scratched a Tory one would find a pessimist, and if one scratched a Liberal one would find an optimist If one scratched the Green Paper one would find acute pessimism Where it is not pessimistic, it is mean-minded The pessimism is contained in the assumptions set out in paragraph 5·6 of volume 1, which looks at the costs of our pension provisions over the next 20 years. It does so on assumptions of 6·5 to 10 per cent. continuing unemployment, so that the greatest extent of the Government's optimism for the next 20 years is an unemployment level of 6·5 per cent. That is a great contrast with Bevendge's original concept of working out a social security scheme, based on assumptions of reasonably full employment.
  The Government's basic assumption is dumbfounding Week in, week out, we hear of how economic recovery is about to arrive next week, next month or next year, and that the economic miracle has been achieved. Such ohrases trip off the tongues of Mimsters at weekend speeches, but, when it comes down to the hard facts, the basic assumption throughout the review is of an intolerable level of unemployment in the years to come.

  461
  We are entitled to ask on what growth assumptions in the economy the review is based. Again, pessimism seems to be the order of the day. The only figures that one can find in the review are the page and paragraph numbers.
  The first question that I put to the Minister for Social Security is: what is it that you have to hide? Without the figures, as the Financial Times commented, it is rather like having an annual report without a profit and loss account. The figures should be given to the House soon, for three reasons. First, no Government or Parliament can contemplate recommending a series of changes to our basic welfare provisions without a pretty good idea of how they will affect those who rely on the welfare state. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister, in answer to questions, said that her refusal to give figures was because of her belief in sound finance. That must be an exotic statement, even by her standards.
  The second reason why there have to be figures is that the Secretary of State said, back in April 1984, that the review was to be revenue neutral. How can we tell if that is so without costing? How can we tell if the reforms will save the £1 billion that the Chancellor wants to save without costings?
  The third reason why the Government should give the House some figures is that in the housing benefit review section of the report, paragraph 3·19 refers to the illustrative costings for that section. However, they have not been given. They have been leaked in various places, but not here.
  While we all welcome the review, the Government have been less than candid, and their failure to publish figures has spread unnecessary fear among claimants, especially pensioners, and this has been done because of media management. However, on the basis of what the report says, we can already identify three sectors in which pensioners will be hard hit—housing benefit, SERPS and the death grant.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he spoke of unnecessary fears. Surely these are necessary fears.
  Mr. Steel: That is a play on words, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a fear that I fear will turn out to be necessary. However, if we are right in some of the calculations that I shall give, it would be better for the Government to give the figures now so that the population can thoroughly debate the Green Paper.
  It has been calculated outside the House that on housing benefit over 6 million people will lose more than £1.40 per week. Is that calculation correct? The Government are in a position to tell us. Before we look at what is proposed on housing benefit, we should do well to remind ourselves of what has already happened to housing benefit in the lifetime of the Government.
  In the 1983 Budget, housing benefit was introduced to unify the two existing schemes, but, because the reform was supposedly conducted without costs, many people lost out during the original introduction of the housing benefit scheme. It has had two further cuts, in April and November 1984. Thus we are arriving at the review against a background of at least three previous occasions in the lifetime of this Government when housing financial
  462
  support for certain people has been cut The total cut may be about £500 million Again, the Government are the only people who can tell us whether that figure is right.
  I move on to the detail of what is proposed on housing First, there is the question, on which we were quizzing the Prime Minister on Tuesday, of the 20 per cent rate demand as a minimum payment from everybody in the future I asked the Government about that, because it is not clear whether it is intended that people receiving the new income support help with these payments will be subject to the 20 per cent or not That is not clear from my reading of the report.
  In principle, it is a good idea to cut the number of individual tapers and the rates at which benefit is withdrawn against them, but the Government's proposal for a single taper for rent and rates will hit pensioners particularly hard I can give a specific case as an example It concerns a pensioner couple who have paid off their mortgage and have an income of £75 a week, which is hardly living in the lap of luxury On realistic assumptions, they will lose out substantially, if my calculations are correct Let us assume a weekly rates bill of £9—a not excessive figure for London At present, the couple will receive £4·71 housing benefit Assuming an income support level of £61, which is the current supplementary benefit level, plus a few additions to which pensioners are entitled, their entitlement under the new, combined 70 per cent taper will be negatived—minus 80p They will lose all benefit entitlement, and there will be the imposition of the 20 per cent rates provision The basic point is that those who pay no rent, who are mainly pensioner owner-occupiers, will be very severely hit by the new proposals in the Green Paper I should like the Minister to confirm that
  At present, people on supplementary benefit receive help to pay their water rates, but under these proposals, as I understand it, they will receive only about £1 per week That will prove inadequate, especially against the background of the Government telling water authorities to push up their charges The Green Paper proposal will hit pensioners severely Many elderly pople will see their basic weekly standard of living drop substantially as a result of the review.
  In regard to the state earnings-related pension scheme, we on these Benches will not be able to support its abolition without a correspondingly large increase in the basic pension All the pensioner organisations that I have met in recent months — Age Concern, Pensioners' Voice, and so on—say that, while they welcome the individual provisions made for pensioners, they would really like a substantial increase in their basic standard of living We have always supported that During the passage of the legislation my noble Friend Lord Banks in another place and my hon Fnend the Member for Truro (Mr Penhaligon), who was our spokesman in this House at the time, made it clear that we reckoned that SERPS would turn out to be too expensive We said we would rather put the money on the basic rate and encourage the growth of occupational pension schemes The Government have never been generous to pensioners in the basic rate.
  We must examine the Green Paper against the background of what has happened m recent years The breaking of the link between earnings and pensions in 1979 has cost a couple £4·85 and a single pensioner £3 per week It is also a way of saying that pensioners should not share

  463
  automatically in any general growth in the nation's prosperity which, as I shall show in a moment, runs counter to some phrases in the Green Paper.
  The effect that the proposals will have on the value of the basic pension is not clear. Paragraph 9·4 of volume 1 suggests that there is to be a reallocation of support towards families with children. The Minister also said that in his statement. It follows that, if the review is to be neutral overall, the people who will lose out will be not families with children, but again mainly pensioners.
  Paragraph 7·19 of volume 1 refers to the abolition of SERPS enabling the Government,
  "if economic growth permits, to give all the pensioners of the time a share of increasing prosperity through the basic pension."
  If we were to put that in jargon terms, it means that the Government's policy is possible jam for the day after tomorrow. That is the only interpretation to put on it. In other words, pensioners will have to wait for a general uplift in the economy, which the Government's own assumption through the 20-year forecast denies will happen, before they can achieve a higher standard of living.
  In volume 2, paragraph 1·69 says that the earnings rule, which the Government have been promising to end since 1979, will be ended
  "at the earliest opportunity when resources permit".
  That is the same message of possible jam the day after tomorrow. What is the Government's long-term intention about the basic pension? We should know before further debate on the Green Paper.
  Of all the proposals in the copious volumes of the review, the proposal in regard to the death grant is the meanest. We would face the same problem if we were in government. I well understand that a flat rate grant of £30 that is long out of date cannot be increased suddenly to bring it in today's terms to the level at which it was introduced, because the public expenditure commitment would be enormous.
  The Government's proposal is doubly vicious. The individual seeking help for a funeral will have to go to the DHSS to ask for a discretionary payment at a time of maximum grief and bereavement. Moreover, the decision will have to be made quickly, by definition, because of the funeral that is being booked to take place within a dew days. Those are the worst possible conditions in which to have a general discussion of a means-tested benefit.
  On top of that I understand that help for funerals is to come out of the new social fund, on which there will be a limit. What will happen towards the end of a financial year if after the money has run out someone asks for help to pay for a funeral? There has been no explanation of how the social fund will operate in general on a fixed sum. In particular, how will it operate if people are inconvenient enough to die towards the end of a financial year? The Government should come clean on that.
  I have a positive suggestion. The only reasonable course is to uprate the death grant to a substantial amount — probably £250 — and to say that it is available automatically for those who wish to claim it, but that the Government may claw it back from the estate in due course, after the funeral is over and the bereavement has passed. That would ensure that the money would not go to those who do not need it. I do not know why the Government have not come up with such a scheme.
  I have said enough about the Green Paper. There are three other matters that I wish to raise under the heading
  464
  of the elderly. Many hon. Members are concerned about the tax provisions that we make for those who devote their lives to caring for the elderly. This is surely one of the developing areas of support for the elderly. The network of informal community care throughout the country is massive, but it is often ignored and not greatly encouraged by public authorities.
  It was estimated from the 1981 census that about 800,000 people are involved in caring for the handicapped elderly. If we add to that other categories of elderly, who need extensive care but receive it through the informal sector—families, neighbours, and so on—the reasonable figure for informal carers would be able about 1 million. If the work of these people has been done by the state and if, on a modest asssumption, we take three and a half hours a day at £2·90 per hour, the average cost of home helps in the financial year 1982–83 would have been a massive £3·5 billion. Therefore, as a community, we should recognise that these informal carers are extremely important because they do a good job at very low cost. Instead of taking them for granted, we need to formulate policies to support them and recognise the selfless contribution that they make.
  The first thing to be done is to extend the improperly named invalid care allowance to married women. At the moment it is discriminatory in that it is paid only to men and women who are not dependent on a breadwinner. I understand that there is before the European Court a case that the Government are likely to lose. It would be more useful and sensible for the Government to give in gracefully and agree that the allowance should be extended to married women. Help should also be provided to enable the carers to have one or two weeks' holiday by bringing someone else in to look after the elderly relative. That would give these people a break from the work they have to do.
  One consequence of the Government's cutback on spending by local authorities has been the reduction in the personal social services. The people who have suffered most have been the elderly, through the meals-on-wheels and home help schemes. Those are the things which directors of social services find relatively easy to cut from their budgets when they are hard pressed. I am told that between 1979 and 1984 two thirds of local authorities had increased spending by less than the Association of Directors of Social Services regarded as necessary to maintain, not to improve, these basic services. Rate-capping will make the problem even worse. Too often the Government have tried to shift the blame for the reduction in personal social services on to the local authorities. We should make it clear in the House that we regard the Government as directly responsible for these cutbacks.
  The elderly who live in rural areas—although I am not speaking exclusively about rural areas — are dependent on the transport provisions that we make for access to post offices, and so on. I believe that the Transport Bill, which is at present going through another place, will damage the interests of elderly people by making it more difficult for local authorities to provide the schemes necessary for effective support of transport for elderly people. For example, I believe that the cross-subsidy will be down from about £60 million to £20 million a year, and in any case it is designed to be phased out within five years.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in my part of the country the elderly, and particularly the disabled, will be substantially helped by the Bill? Although many of them receive concessionary fares, they cannot make use of them either because there are no buses or because they are too disabled to board them. Under the new Bill, they will be able to use their coupons for taxis, and that will help enormously.
  Mr. Steel: The hon. Lady is half right; but to say that because there are no buses in some areas we should introduce legislation that will mean even fewer buses in the future is to express a most extraordinary view. I think that the hon. Lady will join common cause with me in this view. I find that the various concessionary fare schemes suffer through lack of a national scheme of support which would enable elderly people to travel across boundaries between rail and buses. Old-age pensioners in my constituency, which is hard hit by that, have complained to me that in other parts of the country, notably in the London Transport area, pensioners have benefited greatly in past years from imaginative local schemes that have no cross-geographical reference. We know from the experience of British Rail, which found it convenient to introduce off-peak travel schemes for old people, that it is possible for a national scheme to be introduced.
  I referred earlier to post offices. In rural areas people have to travel further because of the cutbacks and closures that are taking place. The combined effect of post office closures and the lack of transport facilities will adversely affect elderly people in rural communities.
  In conclusion, it is important that we turn our attention, in the wake of the publication of the Green Paper, to the plight of the elderly in our communities. We should insist that during the debate in the weeks ahead the Government are more forthcoming about what is actually going to happen, so that at least, in the words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), people know the worst and are not left with the vague, unfigured, unstructured debate into which they have been plunged by the publication of the Green Paper.
  4.52 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the Government's achievement in increasing the value of the retirement pension and welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protect its value; congratulates the Government on carrying out a thorough review of the social security system; and endorses the aim of ensuring a coherent and soundly based benefit structure to meet the needs of pensioners and others.",
  We welcome very much the opportunity for this debate, at an early stage, on the needs of elderly people and their relationship with the proposals that we have put forward in the social security review Green Paper. As a Government, we have shown by our actions that meeting the needs of elderly people is a major objective of our policies, whether in social security, social services, health, or the many other aspects of policy that affect people in retirement.
  The Government's amendment begins by referring to what has been achieved. Especially against the background of what I took to be the rather grudging remarks of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick
  466
  and Lauderdale (Mr Steel), I want simply to remind the House of what has been achieved in the past five or six years First and foremost, we have firmly and clearly not only fulfilled but more than fulfilled our pledge to protect the value of retirement pensions They have risen by very nearly 84 per cent in a period in which prices have risen by 77 per cent —a clear real increase What is more, that has been achieved at a time when the number of retirement pensioners has increased by some 700,000, so that we have protected the position not only of those pensioners whom, as it were, we inherited, but of the significantly larger number of pensioners arising from demographic factors in the past few years Contrary to what many Opposition Members profess to believe, it is our achievement in providing for that additional number of pensioners and increasing the real value of benefits that accounts for the major part of the real increase in social security expenditure of over £8 billion that has taken place in the past five or six years
  At the same time, we have changed the method of uprating pensions so that pensioners have the assurance of increases based on the actual measured increase in prices instead of the vagaries and uncertainties of the forecast method that we inherited from the Labour Government Not least, for pensioners generally, we have written the Christmas bonus into the law and prevented the recurrence of what happened twice under our predecessors when the Christmas bonus was not paid at all But if those are our achievements on the broad front—
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: As the Minister is talking about how good the Government's record is on the Christmas bonus, would he like to refer to the commitment that I seem to recall the Conservatives making before 1979 to double the Christmas bonus? Will the Government actually do that?
  Mr. Newton: I am unaware of any commitment that we made to double the Christmas bonus Such challenges come oddly from an hon Lady who was, as I recall, a member of the Administration at the time when, two years running, no Christmas bonus at all was paid My answer to the hon Lady, if I may lapse into the vernacular, is simply what a nerve.
  Let me turn from what I said about the generality of our achievements for pensioners to some of the more limited measures that we have taken, which I think have been recognised by some Opposition Members, not least the hon Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) They have not been recognised as widely as they should be Although they are not necessarily of benefit to pensioners generally, they have brought significant additional help to important groups of pensioners with particular needs.
  For example, I remind the House that since May 1983 men over 60 who are sick, disabled or unemployed can qualify immediately for the higher long-term rate of supplementary benefit Men over 60 who are not working no longer need to sign on as unemployed to be awarded national insurance credits Let me remind the House also that the capital limit for supplementary benefit was raised to £3,000 in November 1983, and changes have also been made in the smaller capital limit for single payments—a significant additional help to those many pensioners who have modest savings and previously found themselves denied benefit.
  Let me remind the House further that since November 1984 people who return to this country after the age of 70

  467
  have been able to qualify for the non-contributory over-80s retirement pension. Before that change was made they had to fulfil a 10-year residence test before their 80th birthday. At the moment before the other place is a Bill that provides for abolishing the married women's half test, with effect from December 1984, so that married women who were over 60 in April 1979 will be able to get any retirement pension earned by their own contributions even if they did not pay national insurance contributions for half their married life. That was a discriminatory measure, and we have been happy to propose that the House should remove it. In recent proposals brought by the Government to the House, we have made it clear that we intend to abolish the lower married women's rate of the over-80s pension, and pay everyone the full rate from November 1985.
  Those are not proposals that affect every pensioner, but they are targeted on groups with particular needs, for which I think we are entitled to claim credit from the House and, indeed, from the country.
  Perhaps most important of all is a point which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale did not touch upon and which I do not expect to hear mentioned by the Opposition Front Bench. I refer to the Government's most important single achievement in relation to retirement pensions, which has nothing to do with the pension itself. Our achievement in dramatically reducing the rate of inflation has ensured that pensioners' benefits and savings reasonably maintain their value and purchasing power.
  The air of scorn of some Members on the Opposition Front Bench does them very little credit. They should go out into the country and ask pensioners how they feel about the Government's achievements in reducing inflation and how much easier that makes their lives than they were when prices were rising at more than 20 per cent. per annum. The Opposition should talk to the grass roots.
  Mr. Frank Field: I do not wish to cramp the Minister's style, but will he spend some time not just reviewing what he alleges to be the Government's achievements but telling the House what the Government intend to do? As a result of the "new Beveridge" that the Secretary of State has brought forward, how many pensioners will be better off and how many millions will be worse off?
  Mr. Newton: I was about to come to the figures and the Green Paper, but lest the hon. Gentleman think that I am trying to fend him off I should say that the Government are proposing an important series of structural reforms.
  The hon. Gentleman is one of the few people in the House who may already have appreciated the significance of adopting for income-related benefits a common base of income assessment and a co-ordinated set of rules, and its importance for rational social security planning and the use of resources throughout the country. The Government feel that it is right to concentrate first on those structural reforms because whatever resources are available in the social security system it will be impossible to ensure that they are effectively used if we do not have a structure capable of using them effectively. When the House has had an opportunity to come forward with proposals concerning this structure and the Government have produced final proposals, then will be the time to consider in detail how the resources should be applied within that structure. That is what will determine the figures which so interest the hon. Gentleman.
  468
  Within any structure, decisions have to be made from time to time about the level of resources. It would not be sensible to give the kind of figures requested by the hon. Gentleman in advance of the structure being settled. Only the figures for the actual benefit rates from April 1987 will properly allow the hon. Gentleman to make such calculations. It is sensible to get the structure right and then to decide what the resources are to be and how they are to be deployed within the structure.
  Mr. Field: Did the Government follow that procedure when they discussed the reforms in private? Is the Minister saying that the proposals were approved by the Department, the Cabinet Committee and the Cabinet itself without the Secretary of State putting any figures to them at all? Was the Cabinet happy to see at some later stage how individual groups would be affected? If the Cabinet was not satisfied with a discussion on that basis, why should the House be satisfied now?
  Mr. Newton: In the course of the social security review the Government have, of course, satisfied themselves that the structure proposed can be sustained at a cost that the country can afford.
  Mr. Field rose—
  Mr. Newton: I shall give way again in a moment. The hon. Gentleman might at least let me finish my answer to his general point.
  The point that the hon. Gentleman has failed so far to take—and I should like to carry him with me on this— is that whether we have the proposed structure, the present structure or any other structure that people come up with, decisions have to be taken year by year about the resources to be applied within the social security system. That cannot escape any Government, and the Labour Government many times found themselves taking what they no doubt regarded as very difficult decisions for just those reasons.
  Given that within any structure Governments have to take decisions about resources, and as it would plainly be absurd at this stage to try to settle benefit rates for April 1987, the important issue for the Government to put before the House and for the House and the country to consider is whether we are proposing a sensible structure within which the resources, whatever their level, can be sensibly deployed.
  Mr. Field: Most of my constituents would be far happier with a scheme that is complicated and difficult to understand but which pays more money than with a Rolls-Royce scheme which pays only half the benefits, and I shall be happy to take that debate to the country. Is the Minister really saying that the Prime Minister approved the scheme without knowing how many millions of pensioners would be better or worse off?
  Mr. Newton: I have already given my answer to the general question that the hon. Gentleman raised. As one or two of my hon. Friends have pointed out from a sedentary position, although I have the highest regard for the moderation with which the hon. Gentleman put his views in the House and for his knowledge of the social security system—which is greater than that of most of us — the views that he attributes to his constituents, whether accurately or not, are not views that I would expect him to endorse. If the hon. Gentleman, as one of the leading experts in the House on the social security

  469
  system, is saying that he is interested only in additional resources regardless of whether the system is capable of directing them effectively to people in need, frankly he does nothing but damage to his own credibility.
  Mrs. Beckett rose—
  Mr. Newton: I will give way this time, but much as I am enjoying the debate I shall have to resist the temptation to give way any more because many other Members wish to take part.
  Mrs. Beckett: The Minister has said some very kind words about my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but he does his own reputation no good by trying to sustain the argument that the amount of money that people receive matters less than the way in which the money is delivered. If he. really believes that, his understanding of the social security system and those who draw on it is infinitely less than we had previously imagined. Is what the Minister has just said a statement of what the Government are offering — a streamlined system with less money? If so, that merely confirms our worst fears.
  Mr. Newton: I had intended to respond with almost as many kind remarks about the hon. Lady as about her hon. Friend, but in the past 30 seconds or so she has forfeited the right to those kind words.
  Mr. Field: Just answer the question.
  Mr. Newton: Not only did I in no way suggest that the structure was more important to claimants or anyone else than the level of benefits, but I made it quite clear—I hope that I carry both hon. Members with me on this— that a social security system which is not capable of using any given quantity of resources to the best effect, targeted effectively on those in greatest need and with the greatest claim to support from the rest of the community, is not a satisfactory system. What is more, such a system would end up wasting some of whatever money was put into it.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the Minister accept that the elderly have a strongly developed sense of fair play? If they can see exactly how they and others benefit from the social security structure, they will be very much happier than they are with the present complicated system.
  Mr. Newton: I entirely accept that helpful intervention from my hon. Friend.
  I should like to move from the Government's record, as indeed I was being urged to do by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, to the way in which the concern shown in that record is carried through into the objectives and proposals in the review.
  It is significant that the inquiry into provision for retirement was the first of the reviews to be established. Our aim is to ensure a sound basis of social security on which pensioners can safely rely. Briefly, I shall set out the main review proposals.
  First, the basic state pension remains the foundation of state provision. To use the phrase in the Green Paper, it is one of the twin pillars of our approach to social security and a vital part of the improved partnership between the state and the individual that were are creating. The Green Paper states:
  "The Government remain entirely committed to this"—
  the basic retirement pension—
  470
  "and will continue to ensure that it retains its value".
  Pensioners, with other social security beneficiaries, will have two upratings in the 16 months from November 1985 to April 1987 This will be carried out on the historic basis, taking the latest practicable measure, so that each uprating will be on time
  On top of the assurance given on the basic retirement pension, we have made it clear that the rights of existing pensioners or anyone retiring before the end of the century will not be changed by the proposals on the state earnings-related pension scheme All existing rights at the time of the change will be honoured in full For men aged 40 or over, or women aged 35 or over, their SERPS rights will be enhanced as a firm additional basis for the individual, personal or occupational pensions that they be able to build up under the proposals
  Mr. Heffer: I am sure that the hon Gentleman agrees with me that if people were living purely on the basic pension they could not manage to survive They survive because they receive supplementary benefit, yet it is that benefit and the various benefits that go with it, such as the heating allowance, that the Government intend to affect Can the Minister assure us that those people living on benefits will receive more, or is it the intention of the Government, as it appears to us, to muck about with benefits so that people living at that level will be far worse off?
  Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon Gentleman will forgive me if I come in a moment to the incomes support scheme — our proposed restructuring of supplementary benefit—to which I believe he was referring, and to the wider issue that he raised I wish to complete my remarks about our proposals for additional pensions over and above the basic state retirement pension
  With the continuation of the state earnings-related pension scheme for men aged over 50 and women aged over 45 at the time of changeover, and the proposal for enhanced rights for men aged between 40 and 50 and women aged between 35 and 45, and for the protection of SERPS rights at the time of changeover for others, we have provided a firm basis on which people can build additional entitlement through the new arrangements that we propose to introduce for occupational pensions, whether in a firm or on an industry wide basis, or for personal pensions It means that, for the first time, almost everyone in work will be able to build their own entitlements to their own pensions and will have a specific right to contributions from their employers towards that.
  During the years in which those rights are building, they will represent a major social advance—removing the present "two nations" in pensions—and will be a major foundation for even greater independence and the possession of personal ownership rights in a way that has already been reflected in the powerful desire of people to own their homes In some ways, this is a parallel development to home ownership, and I believe that it will come to be seen as a major social reform.
  Mr. Frank Field: Since the Government have made it clear that the aim of the review is primarily to tackle poverty, could the Minister address his mind to the problems of poverty in old age? With regard to the proposal that people should not be in SERPS but should build private provision, does he expect fewer or more people to be poorer at the end of their working lives?
  Mr. Newton: Our purpose is to achieve precisely what has been happening as a result of the growth in occupational pension schemes during the 1950s and 1960s, which almost came to a halt after the introduction of SERPS: it is to build a position in which everyone retiring shall not need to fall back on additional income-related provision. It would be a rash man who would forecast whether, under the existing structure or in the future, that aim will be achieved, but it is a major objective of our policy to ensure that everyone going into retirement does so with an income adequate — if possible, more than adequate—to sustain himself.
  Mr. Field: If that is the aim, why are the Government setting the minimum provision at 4 per cent., when the private sector says that about three times that level will be needed to guarantee a pension that would achieve the Government's objective?
  Mr. Newton: We thought it right to set the figure in the Green Paper at a level which balances two different considerations. The first is the one which the hon. Gentleman and I have just been discussing, and the general aim to ensure adequate incomes for pensioners in retirement. The other is that we must keep an eye on the effects on employers' costs and people's take-home pay. Therefore, it is a balance between the predictions that can be made about any given contribution level, and the impact today. Liberal Members did not deal with this point in their comments on the basic state retirement pension and their desire to increase it. We must balance those considerations against the bills that must be paid, whether by those providing employment or by those in employment. The 4 per cent. figure is very much a minimum, and it is entirely open to people to add to that provision on their own account, to negotiate with their employers for a larger employer's contribution, or to come to whatever arrangements they wish, provided that those minimum requirements are met. The minimum requirements were set because we also considered the employment and other factors that arise in the present world.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister believe that the minimum requirements are sufficient on their own?
  Mr. Newton: Yes. We shall, of course, consult those concerned with providing pensions and annuities, and we shall listen to points made on this or any other issue arising from our proposals. The Green Paper is a consultative document. We have already started the process of consultation with those concerned, and we shall take note of what they tell us. But the hon. Gentleman should recognise that under our proposals the only group of people who will be entirely dependent on the 4 per cent. minimum contribution for their additional pensions will be those who, by most standards, although not perhaps by the hon. Gentleman's standards, are very young, that is to say, men under 40 or women under 35, who have a good while to go before retirement and, therefore, have a considerable time to build up their contributions.
  All the groups above that age will either have then-protected or enhanced SERPS rights as well or, in the case of men over 50 and women over 45, they will have their full SERPS pension. One reason we have cast our proposals as we have is that if this was all that was to be
  472
  provided for people in those older age groups, it would not be possible to build up sufficient provision by the lime of retirement. For that reason we have come forward with this proposed structure.
  In conducting the review and putting forward our proposals in the Green Paper, we have borne in mind the needs of pensioners not only in relation to SERPS or the basic state retirement pension. Pensioners and many other people are at present partly dependent on supplementary benefit for their incomes, and they have faced great problems with the immense, sometimes mind-boggling, complexity of the existing supplementary benefits system.
  Some of the figures are familiar to the House—the 16,000 paragraphs of instructions and the 40-page index. Indeed, there is now a third volume of the S manual. Within all those complicated instructions there is a multiplicity of different types of payment, which means that people are often uncertain about what their entitlement should be. There will be tremendous advantage, not least for pensioners, in our proposed move to a simpler, clearer income support structure within which it is easy to work out entitlement and understand it.
  As the House knows, we are proposing a set of basic benefit rates incorporating premium rates for particular groups, including all pensioners over 60, lone parents and the long-term sick and disabled. A significant further move which I hope will help set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), is that within the pensioner group we are proposing an additional premium rate for the over-80s. They are most likely to have additional needs arising from growing old age and additional frailty. As a result of the premium payment for all pensioners together with the additional premium payment for the over-80s, and given an additional premium for those between 60 and 80 for whom there is an indicator of additional need — for example, as measured by receipt of disablement benefits — in line with the premium for the sick and disabled, we have created a structure which is far simpler and far more likely to meet the general needs of pensioners than the one at present.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is it reasonable to try to assess the amount of money to be allocated to these premiums by establishing what is now spent on heating additions, for example, under the existing supplementary benefits scheme so that they could be spread over all the premiums, or is that a completely cockeyed way of looking at it?
  Mr. Newton: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking, but I think I can answer him by saying that we have made it clear that we are not looking for savings from our proposals for the main structure of supplementary benefit. Broadly, our intention is to put back into the simplified structure of rates, including the premia to which I have just referred, the money that is currently spent on various additional requirements. Principally they are heating additions, but also include diet additions, baths additions, laundry additions and a variety of other additional payments which are part of the complexity of the present system. However, in setting the premium rates we shall have regard to the existing distribution of additional requirements and expenditure of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I hope that

  473
  that answer follows the general lines of the one he wanted and that it is an indication of the way in which our minds have worked in coming forward with the proposals.
  There are two other important points about the replacement proposals for the supplementary benefits scheme. First, with regard to the income support proposals, we are proposing a further, very important change in the capital rule which I believe will be widely welcomed by many pensioners. That is the introduction of a tapered rule running from £3,000 to £6,000 in place of the present £3,000 capital cut-off—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that endorsement from the Conservative Benches and also to acknowledge the nods from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and his hon. Friends. It is clear that they also welcome that move, just as it will be welcomed by many pensioners.
  Secondly, the other half of the supplementary benefits replacement is that we are separating into the so-called social fund a number of the highly complex regulation arrangements which currently exist for meeting a variety of specific needs. These include the single payments arrangements, the urgent needs arrangements and, to a significant extent, those arrangements which are directed towards community care needs. We believe that these new arrangements will provide flexibility in dealing with the needs of special cases—their needs as whole people— which now prove extremely difficult in the detailed regulation system, particularly the detailed regulations for single payments.
  Very much part of our thinking which has helped develop our ideas on the social fund is the belief that by operating with specially trained officers we can build on the experience which the Department has gathered since 1980 through the work of special case officers. We can also work more closely than has sometimes been the case in the past with those who are often concerned with the needs of the same claimants in local authority social services departments. That will enable us to build up policies which, for example, are much more effectively directed towards helping people who might need special help because they are coming out of institutions or hospitals and back into the community. It could be that they need special help, in conjunction with local authority social services departments, to ensure that they do not require institutional or hospital care.
  Mr. Heffer: This sounds absolutely marvellous, but what are the limits in relation to the social fund? If there are clear cash limits, what happens if a number of people at a given moment have special needs but the limit is reached? Those of us who live with grass roots people —[Interruption.] Some of us do live with grass roots people, and many of them are our constituents. Can we have an assurance that, when there are genuine special needs, such people will receive benefit under the new system?
  Mr. Newton: We intend that the social fund should operate within an annual budget. That will entail our making arrangements similar to those we make in health authority funding, where many of the same problems can arise. The budget will be allocated to local DHSS offices and the pattern of expenditure, priorities and the need to hold reserves at regional level will be assessed. Nothing
  474
  that I have seen of existing social provision, where the concept of annual budgeting is part and parcel of annual operations, leads me to believe that we cannot devise effective arrangements for a flexible system which meets needs
  Alongside the simplified and, I believe, significantly improved structure of supplementary benefit which we are proposing we also propose a system of housing benefit which is much simpler, clearer and, we believe, more effective in meeting needs In response to the hon Member for Birkenhead, I said that for the first time the proposed income support system and the proposed revised housing benefit system will be based on the same assessment of income and in accordance with consistent rules It is significant to pensioners and others that, for the first time, we shall have a system of housing benefit that deals even-handedly with those on income support and those who are not
  As the hon Member for Birkenhead has obviously spotted, people on supplementary benefit have 100 per cent of their housing costs reimbursed whereas those not in receipt of supplementary benefit but perhaps have only fractionally more income have only 60 per cent of their housing costs met That gives rise to the problems which have led to the extreme complication of housing benefit supplement We are proposing equal treatment for people on the same income, whether it is derived from supplementary benefit or another source That is a major gam in fairness and equity.
  The right hon Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale will have realised that I cannot give figures that he wanted [HON MEMBERS "Ah "] I am not running away and will try to avoid the temptation of repeating everything that I have already said
  In addition to those common rules and the common basis for assessment of income for housing benefit and supplementary benefit, the premium rates for pensioners on the new income support scheme will carry through into housing benefit They will become what are known as housing benefit needs allowances.
  Everything I say about structural questions and the folly of attempting now to set benefit rates for April 1987 also applies to the calculation of housing benefit because that will be determined by the income support rates set in the replacement supplementary benefit system and by the rate of taper that we are proposing.
  In any structural reform such as we are proposing there will be swings and roundabouts Some people will gain and others will lose We have made it clear that we intend to ensure that there are no cash losers in the change to the income support scheme We have stated our anxiety to make effective transitional arrangements to protect those who need to be protected, as any reform is bound to affect entitlement We shall consider the implications of the proposal, which I believe is right in principle, for everyone to pay about 20 per cent of their rates The proposal has widespread support on the Benches behind me and, I believe, elsewhere, as it will restore people's interest in what their elected councillors do We have said several times that we shall give appropriate consideration to what is required in that regard as it affects people on supplementary benefit.
  We intend to answer the question posed by the right hon Member for Tweeddale, Ettnck and Lauderdale The proposal for payment of 20 per cent or so of rates should apply to people on income support and to those who

  475
  receive only housing benefit and have no income support. I hope that our stance is clear. I cannot give the House an absolute guarantee that there will be no losers, because of the nature of the changes. I am giving an assurance that we shall have in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said when setting rates and establishing the transitional arrangements.
  I have taken a lot of the House's time—fairly, I hope I can claim—responding to questions. I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to wind up the debate and to comment on death grant. I should like to observe, however, that everyone gets only £30, which is of very little use and that it is unsatisfactory that only those on supplementary benefit receive full help with funeral costs. We are proposing that genuinely adequate help should be available to those who need help to meet funeral costs rather than only to those on an existing means-tested benefit. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal would not achieve that end. His proposed £250 for everybody would not be enough help for people with no means. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his proposal.
  The review's purposes are to meet the social conditions of today and those which we can foresee for the rest of the century, to create a simpler and fairer system so that people, not least pensioners, genuinely get the benefits to which they are entitled, and to create a soundly based system that can deliver the promises it makes. Nobody has a greater interest in our achieving those objectives than pensioners, and we mean to see that they are secured.
  5.40 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: It is right that the first aspect of the Green Paper should be the proposals that affect the elderly, because, leaving aside the rhetoric, the Government's attitude to pensions most clearly reveals the twin purposes of their reviews. First, there is the obsession with cutting public expenditure for the sake of cutting, or, perhaps, for the sake of the few individuals —the better off—who alone have reaped the benefit of the cuts. Secondly, there is the obsession with destroying public services—financial or otherwise—simply because they are public services.
  The most significant change that the Green Paper has proposed is the phasing out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. The more we consider the matter, the more extraordinary this decision seems. Already it appears that contributors to the scheme — the few who are allowed to stay in SERPS—will, at best, pay slightly more without receiving improved benefits. The vast majority of people will pay substantially more and receive substantially less, especially as those in occupational schemes will lose the state's hedge against inflation and the standards against which those schemes have been measured.
  We have yet to learn the costs of abolition in terms of tax concessions on the compulsory private pensions with which the Government plan to replace SERPS, although there seems every likelihood that they will run to several thousand million pounds. We are aware that the Government have argued during and before this debate that massive and unforeseen changes have made the abolition of SERPS necessary. The Government have not explained at all—never mind to our satisfaction—why these changes were not understood, not only in 1975, as the Government now suggest, but in 1981 when the bulk
  476
  of the statistics on which this policy is based were published. The Government have not explained why the conclusions were not understood in 1983 when the- Prime Minister gave one of her famous assurances or even in 1984 when the Secretary of State gave his assurance. The statistics for pensioners and for the contributory population that are used now are almost identical in every respect to those that were used years ago.
  What happened between the assurance in 1984 by the Secretary of State and June 1985 to bring about this massive change in understanding and in policy? Ii is not that there has been a massive change in the anticipated number of pensioners or in the ratio of contributors to non-contributors. The Secretary of State produced a half-baked, half-thought-out plan, justified by reference to a misinterpreted opinion poll, for what he called "personal portable pensions." That is not even easy to say. Ii was a plan not just for privatising, but for individualising pensions. The trouble with the plan was that, the more people looked at it, the more they pointed out that no one in his right mind would buy the right hon. Gentleman's portable pension when he could get a much better deal from the existing state scheme. Full transferability, guarantees against inflation and a pension with a decent maturity period were all provided in the state pension scheme. That scheme was a much better bet than any private scheme. One after another individuals and the institutions that advised the Secretary of State published articles or wrote privately pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman that no one would buy a personal portable pension unless the Secretary of State first abolished the superior state scheme.
  We all realise to our cost that telling the Prime Minister that the state is doing something better than the private sector—that the administrative costs are lower so that the state scheme gets even better value for money than the private sector—is like a red rag to a bull. The Prime Minister knows what she believes and she does not want to be confused with the facts. She knows that anything that the state provides must be bad—that it must be worse than the private sector. If, by some chance, the state scheme is better than the private sector scheme, her motto is "Get rid of it quickly before anyone finds out."
  Because the Government must acknowledge that they are replacing a good pension scheme with a worse one at a higher cost, it has been necessary to preach doom and gloom about how SERPS has not really been a good scheme because it has been so wickedly over-generous to pensioners. We have heard before, and no doubt shall hear again, reservations about the necessity for and the wisdom of the Government's proposals — whether it is rhe example of the Phillips committee howlers in 1954 or the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee's devastating criticisms a year or so ago.
  Even leaving aside all the other questions about the accuracy or truthfulness of the Government's claims about the problems with SERPS, one major issue remains. The Government Actuary points out, and is quoted as saying in the background paper to the reviews, that the possible rise in contributions that he identifies will occur at the level given only if the link between pension upratings and earnings is restored — the link that this Government abolished in 1980 and that they have always refused to restore. While the basic pension remains linked only to prices, its value over the years will be so eroded that, even

  477
  if the Government do not lay a finger on SERPS, eventually the total pension will be sufficient to equate only to the value of the pension today.
  Those who have no entitlement to SERPS because they have not yet found a job, or those who are not wanted by the private insurance companies because they are on the dole or sick, will remain heavily or totally reliant upon the basic pension and will end up completely reliant on whatever scheme replaces supplementary benefit by the end of the century or later. Even on the Government's own predictions before they decided to abolish SERPS, at the end of the century there will still be a million pensioners on supplementary benefit. I shall not bother to ask the Minister how many more he thinks there will be if the Government abolish SERPS, because I do not suppose that he can tell us that either.
  Apart from the value of the pension itself, the Government's argument that we cannot afford to let SERPS continue has been severely damaged. If the Government continue to link the basic pension only to prices, the contributions will ultimately reach not even the predicted 20 per cent.—the figure that the Government love to cite—but
  "less than half of that",
  in the Government Actuary's words. We can forget all the weeping and gnashing of teeth about the cost of SERPS. The Government did a demolition job on SERPS five years ago, in 1980, and it is totally gratuitous for them to return to it now.
  That is not the point of this proposal. The point is that SERPS, plus an eroded basic pension, is still better than a private pension plus an eroded basic pension, and that is why SERPS has to go.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked the Minister whether he could give an assurance —wisely, the Minister was not drawn on that point— that the personal portable pension, or whatever the new plan is, will give as good a pension provision as or better than SERPS would have provided. The Minister knows that the answer is, "No, it will not." The Government, in their consultative document, specifically ruled out giving any guarantees on the value of personal portable pensions. Indeed, they said that anyone who took out such a pension could not rely upon any fallback or guarantee from the state—presumably, other than supplementary benefit or the basic pension—because that person would be taking an individual risk and would be out on his own. If the new scheme is as good as or better than SERPS, there would be no need for the Government to warn the people whom they wished to remove from those pensions that the Government would not pick up the pieces.
  The Minister said a good deal about the Government's record and how grateful pensioners are. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has tried recently asking pensioners how grateful they are. He is fond of pointing out the dangers of inflation. We all recognise that inflation has undesirable consequences, but under the Labour Government the real value of the pension increased by 20 per cent. It seems to be difficult for Conservative Members to grasp that simple fact. Despite the problems that we faced, we managed to help those drawing the pension then and, by establishing the scheme that the Government attack in these reviews, to provide for the pensioners of the future. This Government are attacking both.
  Mr. Newton: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but, in view of her remarks, I must ask whether she would care to comment on the adjustment in 1976 to the uprating method, which did not take account of several months of rapidly rising inflation and cut what in today's money would be at least £1 billion from the amount that pensioners would otherwise have received. I remind the Liberals, since they introduced this debate, that the Lib-Lab pact was made the following year.
  Mrs. Beckett: Whatever may be the criticisms of the record of the Labour Government, we still improved pensions in real terms by 20 per cent., which is more than the present Government have managed to do.
  I remind the Minister of another simple fact which I have drawn to his attention on other occasions. In our whole period of office, we had only as much from the North sea in terms of income as the Government have received every month throughout their period of office. Even with our problems, we managed to increase the real value of the pension by 20 per cent., so perhaps we should hear rather less about how great the Government's record has been. The first thing that the Government did was to erode the basis of the improvement, the link with earnings, although they still paid lip-service to their concern for the elderly.
  Although SERPS is most significant in the sense of revealing the purpose of the reviews, neither the proposals on SERPS nor the reviews themselves represent the whole of the attack on the elderly that we have seen in recent years. I am not even referring to what the Minister said about changing uprating. He knows that his Government have saved money by changing the basis of uprating. They have saved money on three occasions by postponing by a week or two the payment of pensions. They have saved money by reducing heating allowances.
  Most of all, the Government have saved money on pensioners by the massive cuts in housing benefit. I might have said more about the cuts that we have already seen — and predicted — in housing benefit, except that previous debates have shown that there is very little point in asking Ministers to give us more indications of who will be affected and to what extent. We know that the Government have the figures but do not intend to reveal them to us. As they are, according to the Minister, so good, it is surprising that we have not been told about them. The Government are not usually reluctant to claim credit for being generous to the populace. As I have said, we know that there will be cuts in housing benefit, and we strongly suspect that occupational pensioners in particular will be the sufferers.
  The most vulnerable among the elderly have been consistently among the hardest hit. The leader of the Liberal party referred to the forced increases in water rate which are being brought about by the Government. They follow hard on the heels of a series of forced increases in fuel costs, which have fallen particularly hard on pensioners. The pensioners who are poor enough now to be drawing supplementary benefit are precisely those pensioners who often fall foul of the system of single payments to which the Minister referred.
  A wide range of problems which affect everyone who is poor bear even more harshly on the elderly. I have recently received some communication from chiropodists —I hope that Minister will be able to comment on it later — about the hardships caused to pensioners in

  479
  regard to single payments, and the wholly inadequate grants which are received—if, indeed, they are received at all. Some people have too many deformities of the feet to wear ordinary shoes but are not sufficiently severely affected to justify the wearing of surgical shoes. Many pensioners find that, if they can get assistance, it is wholly inadequate to meet the cost which they have to bear. In that context, as in many others, it was pointed out to me very forcefully that the cost to the state of chiropody charges and the cost to individuals in pain and discomfort greatly outweighs the cost of a more sensible system.
  Although the Minister spoke with touching confidence in his new proposals for a social fund, which he seems to think will be better than the single payment system, the Opposition have even more worries and concern about his proposals than we have about the existing scheme—and, heaven knows, that is saying something.
  The leader of the Liberal party referred to problems connected with the death grant, and I am aware that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be replying on that point. When the Secretary of State for Social Services made his recent statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to people having to have a pauper's funeral. Conservative Members sought to discount what my hon. Friend said. If they do not like that term, they may be more touched by the term "parish funeral." In the folklore of our parents and grandparents, that was always something devoutly to be avoided. To be buried by the parish was regarded as a great stigma and source of shame. The more I hear about the Minister's proposals for a social fund, the more it seems to me that they will result in the reintroduction of the stigma.
  I was entirely unconvinced when I heard the Secretary of State say that the lack of an appeal process will not fall foul of the European Court. I noticed that the Secretary of State was prepared to put the blame on the Minister for Social Security if that did not turn out to be the case.
  We are also concerned about the staff at the DHSS. I am not sure whether they will retire early, die of heart attacks, have nervous breakdowns, be murdered or lynched, but I am sure that there will be a substantial increase in the turnover of DHSS managers.
  Mr. Newton: The entire basis of the scheme was largely discretionary until it was put into regulations in 1980. The notion that a modest return to discretion, in an area in which regulations have not worked very well, will defeat a system which operated largely on the basis of discretion for so many years cannot be supported.
  With regard to death grant, the terms "pauper's funeral" and "parish funeral" refer to something which can still, in theory, exist—burial by the local authority. The local authority still has that duty in certain cases. In my experience, supplementary benefit single payments are not seen as being the same as a pauper's funeral. The hon. Lady is drawing a misleading and wrong parallel in suggesting that they are the same.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It would be better if, instead of having ministerial interventions, particular points were dealt with in the reply at the end of the debate.
  Mrs. Beckett: The elderly are also severely affected by the changes in the provisions concerning board and lodging. The elderly are affected, as are other groups, by the ceilings imposed on board and lodging. If the lodging
  480
  in which the elderly have been staying has charges above the ceiling, or if there is a wish to increase the charges, which would take them above the ceiling, that is a matter of considerable concern to them. Assurances were given that such matters would be looked at.
  A particular problem which has been drawn to my attention recently, affects handicapped people who are just under 65 and eligible to have varying sums paid to their account, the maximum being £198, because they are under 65. It is my understanding that on the day people become 65 — if it happens to be more than a year since the regulations became law — they are now eligible for a payment of only £138.60. That is a reduction of £60 in the payment which can be made. I am told that that has already begun to happen to people in nursing homes. Indeed, I have a case—I shall pass it on to the Minister—of a home in which two or three such people are already affected. Obviously, it is a very serious matter, not only for the homes which are trying to provide proper nursing care but for the individuals who are affected. I find it hard to believe that even this Government intended that there should be such appalling side effects.
  There are also the problems which arise where margins in homes for the elderly are cut to the bone. There is a fear that it may be necessary to reduce the level of provision of the very services that the Government have asked them to provide under the code of practice, such as proper training for staff and proper care for residents.
  I understand that there are considerable differences of opinion arising between local offices as to who is to decide whether the level of fees is appropriate for the area concerned, although I recognise that the whole intention was to take some of the discretion away from local offices. In some areas, it is being said that payment above the ceiling can be made for a substantial period, while in others it is being said that the new figures must be implemented immediately. I hope the Minister will look into the question of how much discretion is being permitted.
  Our main concern in the debate is the overall problems faced by the elderly of today. They include those who struggled to bring up their families before the introduction of the welfare state, the men—all too few—who fought in one or perhaps two world wars, and all too many of their widows. They include those who worked and struggled to establish a better society and who hoped to crown the victory that we commemorated this year with a society dedicated, for the first time in our history, to the principle of from each according to his or her ability and to each according to his or her needs — in other words, the principle of the welfare state.
  It is a tragedy that, towards the end of their lives, they should be seeing a Tory Government who are not only trying to undo everything that most of them worked for but are making it plain, by their attitude to the pensioners of the future as well as to those of today, that they reject that fundamental principle of the welfare state.
  It is still among the most elderly that the greatest reluctance exists to claim the benefits to which they are rightfully entitled — even benefits for which they and their families have paid—because they feel the stigma of charity, not rights, hanging even over the welfare state.
  I must tell the Minister frankly that, in my opinion, the real meaning of the reviews, for the elderly and for everybody affected by them, is that, whatever the

  481
  Government may say, their desire is to reintroduce that stigma. They may not use those words, but that is what their words mean.
  Not long ago a comedy show ran on television for almost as long as the present Government have run. It was called, "Never mind the quality, feel the width." The proposals that we are debating today are, unfortunately, as poor in quality as we fear they will be narrow in generosity.
  6.2 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Today's debate is concerned with the problems of the elderly. In my constituency, the elderly deeply resent being referred to only in relation to their problems. Indeed, some may feel that an advantage of televising the debates in another place is that all can see the contribution to public life that is made by many over retirement age. Most pensioners are fit and able to assist their families. More importantly, they are able to make an enormous contribution, in voluntary organisations and other types of service, to the community.
  When talking to pensioners today one discovers that income maintenance is not their greatest fear, though it is understandable that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) should have referred to income. After all, at the time of the Lib-Lab pact, with inflation running at more than 25 per cent., many pensioners were afraid that they would not have sufficient income to see out their lives.
  In fact, pensions have kept up with the cost of living, and during the past 30 years there has been a substantial shift in resources in favour of pensioners. The result is that today many pensioners are better off per head than the households of those in work.
  Pensioners are worried mainly by the fear of isolation and alienation. It is clear from recent census returns that many more elderly now live alone. With people living much longer, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of over-80s, and these are causes for concern.
  In recent years, under Conservative rule, there has been a 15 per cent. increase in resources devoted to the personal social services, a 20 per cent. increase in real terms in expenditure on the health services and there are more nurses, district nurses, doctors, health visitors and so on. All of that has made for a great improvement in assisting the elderly. More important than even those services is the way in which they are used, and there have been many initiatives in care in the community, with people being brought into voluntary organisations so that the elderly can be helped to live at home.
  I am vice-chairman of the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants, an organisation with approaching 50 branches throughout the country, helping informal carers such as those to whom the leader of the Liberal party rightly referred. These people selflessly look after those who, wherever possible, can live at home. The Department has given assistance to the NCCED and incorporated them in plans and initiatives. There are, however, many other groups in the community helping to make the elderly feel valued and important. They include the WRVS and Age Concern, whose members know a great deal about training and the needs of the elderly.
  482
  Last week I visited some housing developments for the elderly in my constituency I saw with pride the great variety of provision that is being made, including sheltered housing, cluster housing and good neighbour schemes I was made aware of the way in which developments are embracing some of the new technologies For example, it is possible to have a radio link with a headquarters so that those in difficulty can call for help.
  It is all too easy to polarise provision and only to consider whether it is provided by the state or the private sector The provision of old people's homes has been a controversial area, and I welcome the new regulations for the registration of homes for the elderly Over the years there have been many articles and research projects highlighting the treatment of people in homes for the elderly Recent research at the university of Bath made it clear that under the new procedures many such homes in the state sector would have difficulty getting registered and becoming approved as private homes.
  Recent events in Southwark at the Nye Bevan home have provided a particularly appalling example of what can happen under local authority provision We need a partnership and balance between private, voluntary and local authority homes, and it is wrong to suggest that there is some type of hierarchy.
  The elderly want to feel acknowledged and valued members of the community They want the Government to sustain then: policies for the Health Service, making sure that patient care is given priority and that the resources available are used effectively They want to see the social services maintained and, where possible, improved They want support for informal carers, for all those who voluntarily, giving then own time, help others Above all, they want flexibility and choice so that they may have dignity in their old age, making a contribution to the community while in their active years of retirement, then being supported with the help they need on becoming more frail towards the end of their lives.
  6 8 pm
  Mr. Frank Field:It is customary to comment on points made by the previous speaker I hope that the hon Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs Bottomley) will forgive me if I do not do that on this occasion, though I confess that if I were a Conservative Member speaking in this debate, following the announcement of a major review of the welfare state, I should have made a contnbution similar to hers It was clever in the way it distracted attention from some of the immediate plans of the Government
  I shall refer to some matters that were raised by the right hon Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr Steel) and my hon Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs Beckett), the first being to question how the Secretary of State was able to boast that his review of the welfare state, which will result in another Beveridge, could be presented to Parliament without one figure to show how individual groups of claimants would be affected.
  The Minister of State answered that question today by saying that the Government were concerned with the structure of benefits and that once the consultation period was over the figures would be provided I have a suggestion which puts a different light on what is really going on We have read much in the press about the success of the Secretary of State and his team in fighting

  483
  off Treasury attacks on the welfare state. Is it possible that it was a clever ploy by the Secretary of State to make his statement on Monday without giving any figures? Is it possible that that was part of a deal that he had to strike with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is it possible that the efforts of the Treasury to cut welfare provision will continue as we embark on this year's review of public expenditure?
  Has all that resulted in Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security being forced to talk only about the structure, when hon. Members in all parts of the House want information about the rates of benefit so that we can work out who among our constituents will be better off and how many thousands among them will be worse off?
  The Minister's clever ploy was no mere accident. He was pushed into it. It takes more than nerve for the DHSS team to come to the House and behave in this way because only a few weeks ago the Secretary of State and the Minister of State savaged my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for presenting proposals which he had not fully costed. We were told that it was outrageous, irresponsible and typical of the Labour party. Today the Government propose a major overhaul without providing a single figure.
  Perhaps the Minister can say whether my analysis is correct. I do not wish to score points, but if I am right and the Treasury is still after cuts of £2 billion or £4 billion the support of Government Back Benchers will be needed to fend off an attack. Ministers must not take pleasure in mystifying themselves and their own Back Benchers about what they are up to.
  The state earnings-related pensions scheme is to be abolished. That will mean a worse deal for women and for low-paid workers. Despite the Minister of State's debating skills, when asked whether the alternative will be superior in terms of tackling poverty he was reticent. The private sector says that if workers are to build up contributions over their lifetime to afford a pension which will prevent them from being in need in old age, contributions must be between 12 and 14 per cent. of their earnings. The Government are talking about contributions of 4 per cent. SERPS is to be abolished, but the alternative will not achieve the Government's objective of taking people off means tests and making fewer people less dependent on state support.
  The Government are loose in their use of language. Certain phrases appeal to their Back Benchers and many people in the country. They say that we must target resources to those in greatest need. That is a good phrase, but let us examine what the Government are doing— although that is difficult since we have no figures.
  Let us examine the simplification involved in replacing the supplementary benefit scheme with the income support scheme. The Government intend to simplify the scheme by abolishing all the additions to basic benefit which are currently given for heating, diet and special laundry needs. According to Government language, there could not be better targeting than that because the extra allowances are given only if a dietary, heating or laundry need can be shown.
  The Government's alternative is a premium that will apply to everyone at present in that category. The jam which was spread less thickly amongst those in greatest need is to be spread more thinly amongst all people in that category. Even without the figures, we can see that some of the Government's objectives will not be achieved.
  484
  I hope that two clear messages result from the debate today. One reason why the Goverment have not provided any figures in connection with this major overhaul of the welfare state is that the struggle about the level of welfare support is continuing between the DHSS and the Treasury. Once that dispute is settled and the figures are available we shall know the extent of the cuts. Whenever hon. Members ask how many people will be better off and how many millions will be worse off, Ministers will not reply with a straight answer. It is right for the leader of the Liberal party to sound a note of worry that millions will be worse off as a result of the review, although we may not be able to put exact numbers on it until later in the year.
  SERPS has faults and the Government are correct to say that we have a problem with an aging population which is increasing relatively faster than our working population. Despite those problems, the Government are abolishing SERPS which is the only method on the statute book which guarantees bridging the link between poverty and old age for most people. The Government's alternative will not achieve that. There will be many more poor pensioners in the future. I hope that the messages are received loud and clear in the country.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: If I were a Labour Member — I hope that I never shall be — I should probably make a speech similar to that made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) if I understood the subject as he does, but I shall not follow his line. I want to explore the wider issue discussed by the leader of the Liberal party.
  The debate has tended, like so many others, to focus on money. The hon. Member for Birkenhead concentrated on money. He is an expert on such matters, but money indicates something about attitudes. The extent of Government expenditure on the elderly tells us something about the Government's attitude.
  Last year £6.5 billion, or 40 per cent. of the Health Service budget, was spent on the elderly. Does that mean that the Government care about the elderly? Would the Opposition say that the Government were more caring if they spent 50 per cent. of the budget on the elderly? What is the cut-off point or the starting point of caring?
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House are caring, and even if we spent a few more billion pounds it would not mean that we were more caring. The Labour party thinks that it has a monopoly of caring. It has a habit of championing minority groups such as the elderly, the handicapped and the disadvantaged. Anyone who is not quite up to the next man is labelled "disadvantaged" and immediately attracts the Labour party's interest.
  Today the Liberal party is trying to upstage the Labour party by arguing that it can do even better for the elderly than the Labour party and that it cares even more. No party has a monopoly of caring. The test of who cares most is not decided by who spends most. The elderly must have opportunities for maintaining good health and human dignity. The dignity of the elderly is most important.
  Society in various parts of the world views its elderly in many different ways. In the east the elderly are still revered as the heads of the family. In developing countries the elderly play a full part in family life. In many European countries they continue to head the family business. The elderly have the status of experience, wisdom and prudence.

  485
  In Britain, the elderly and their problems are seen as something with which the state must deal—it is not for the family to look after the elderly, but for the Government. The trade union movement continues to fight to lower the retirement age, but unwittingly it is compounding the problem. There is an ever-growing number of retired and elderly people. The term "elderly" tends to be synonymous with being retired from paid work.
  Old age begins in Britain when one becomes a pensioner, and pensioners are becoming pensioners as early as 50. They switch from being part of society to being an adjunct to society. It is rather like Cinderella. One day one is in a job and the next day one is old — someone who attends Christmas parties and wears funny hats.
  Rather than being revered, our elderly tend to be patronised. They receive concessions for travel and special prices at cinemas. Yet the major problem is life expectancy, which is increasing in leaps and bounds. We are spending £17·4 billion a year on health care and as a result it has improved dramatically. Whereas in 1985 there were about 3·5 million people over the age of 75, by the year 2050 there will be nearly double that number—6 million people. Whereas this year just over 500,000 people are more than 85, by 2050 there will be nearly 2 million—three times as many. That is one aspect that has not been mentioned in the debate. We must consider the scale of the problem and the increased life expectancy of society. We therefore have the prospect of increasing numbers of people spending a quarter of a century or more of their lives as pensioners.
  There are two problems. First, where will all those retired people live for a quarter of a century of their lives? Secondly, what will they do with their time? What will they do day after day when they are retired and have nothing to do? A large majority of retired people will continue to live in their own homes—whether owned or rented. However, there will be an increasing need to build special-purpose bungalows and warden-controlled complexes, and that entails an increase in public expenditure.
  There has been a growth in the number of residential homes. In 1982-83, expenditure on the care of the elderly in residential homes rose from £39 million to £102 million. Expenditure for last year is estimated at £190 million. While private homes provide better value and lower costs than local authority homes—[Interruption.] Oh yes they do. I do not know why Opposition Members are making a noise. They know that what I am saying is absolutely right. Private homes provide very much better value than local authority homes. I shall not bore the House with statistics, but I have them to hand, as does my hon. Friend the Minister. Although private homes provide better value than local authority homes, the cost of keeping the elderly in private homes rose from £39 million in 1982–83 to £190 million this year.
  There is a further advantage: caring for the elderly in private homes entails half the cost of keeping an elderly person in a geriatric bed in a hospital, the current cost for which is £243 a week. As the population lives longer, the burden and the cost on the state will continue to increase—
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: What burden?
  Mr. Steen: It is a very real burden on the state. The state will not refuse to accept that burden, but it is a burden.
  I am sure that Opposition Members will agree that the one way in which the Government can endorse their family policy is to encourage more people to look after their own. I have never understood why the Government do not give some benefit and tax relief to those devoted people who look after their elderly and frail parents. They dedicate their lives to looking after their families. And it need not be only parents; it could apply to uncles and aunts. It is a better way for retired people to live, and would not be a strain on the state. Yet the Government continue to refuse to give tax relief to those looking after their families.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is making a comment that Opposition Members often make. The reason why the Government do not provide such help is simple: they seem to be quite incapable of distinguishing between cutting public expenditure and getting value for money.
  Mr. Steen: I should have expected a helpful remark like that from the hon. Lady, and I am sorry that I gave way.
  Not only will the Government save money by giving tax benefits to those who look after their own, but it is far better that the elderly should live with their families. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that when he replies.
  Money and housing appear to be the nitty-gritty of the problem facing the elderly, but I believe that there is a more sinister problem—loneliness. The House has not addressed that point in the debate. The problem of loneliness will eclipse all other problems as the elderly live longer. They need a purpose in life. I have met few who are ecstatic at the prospect of retirement, especially early retirement. They see little future in their lives, there is little prospect of paid work to augment their pensions and they have few opportunities to do something in society. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for what he said about voluntary work.
  Loneliness is one of the worst and most intangible conditions of our time, especially for the retired living in our large urban areas. What are they supposed to do for a quarter of a century? They cannot travel on a bus with their concessionary fares all the time; they cannot play bridge or visit the museums or eat at luncheon clubs all the time. What are they supposed to do other than watch television and wait for a knock on the door? The Government need to help them find a new purpose, a new role and a new aim. People will be increasingly out of paid work at a younger and younger age.
  We have a vast and increasingly fit army of young retired people who have a wealth of experience, knowledge and skills. We have to find a task and a purpose for them. There is a tremendous waste of resources. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead appears to be either anxious to leave the Chamber or in some discomfort. Although he is very good at juggling with statistics, he overlooks the importance of the humane aspect of caring for the elderly. It is all about the real problems of living, rather than simply playing around with statistics and money. It is the problems of loneliness, caring and having a part to play in society. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that—
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman appears to be advocating a charter for busybodies.
  Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but this evening we are airing the grievances and problems of the elderly. We must tackle those.
  I asked what an elderly person would do for a quarter of a century. He cannot travel on a bus the whole time, or watch television the whole time. What is he supposed to do?
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's plans for a flexible decade of retirement would go some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's point?
  Mr. Steen: Yes. My hon. Friend always puts her finger on it. I am glad she is joining in the debate.
  We have debated many matters this evening, and I hope that I have made a short but helpful contribution. It was right for the leader of the Liberal party to raise the problems of the elderly. I regret that so few Opposition Members feel that this is a topic of such importance that they wish to join the debate. I am glad that a few members of the Liberal party, though only a few, are present and also that a few members of the Social Democratic party are here. I am pleased that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken in the debate. I support the Government amendment. We are on the right path towards helping the lonely and the elderly.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I am sure that the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) will be pleased to hear that I intend to put the other side of the coin. I do not know why he regards six Back Benchers of his own party as a large number. If he does, he is innumerate or is exaggerating. I do not accept that if people do not pay rates directly through their rates bill they are not contributing to rates income. I fear a cop-out by industry if it regards rates as being paid simply by ratepayers. Every customer and employee of a company pays its rates. The Confederation of British Industry recognises that fact and has pointed out to its employers and customers that high rates affect viability. It wishes to alter that position.
  The social security reviews are defective because they do not tackle linkages. Although I agree with the hon. Member for South Hams that a case can be made for extra expenditure upon the social services or social security, there are many other problems that can be tackled without spending extra money. Normally they can be dealt with by linkages. Some houses are under-occupied and could be used by families. They remain under-occupied because there is insufficient sheltered housing for single people. It is a waste of resources which the single elderly deplore. The clearance of inner city areas has contributed towards the huge escalation in costs. The small, old houses that people prefer to live in have been demolished. Clearances are still taking place and ought to be stopped.
  If elderly people wish to remain in their own homes, an adequate attendance allowance might make it unnecessary for them to enter institutional care. An attendance allowance would be far cheaper than institutional care. The social services have a part to play by providing day centres which enable the elderly to be fed properly. The voluntary sector can help. The community
  488
  transport project takes people to the day centres. The National Health Service can also play its part by providing community nursing. If all these services were pulled together, better and cheaper care would be provided for individual needs. The social security reviews have failed to deal with the problem in that way. They have simply shifted money around from one needy pocket to another.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: This has been a very useful and worthwhile choice of subject, particularly since the social security reviews were published this week. The alliance has chosen the problems of the elderly as one of the first subjects to be debated. This is the first opportunity to scratch the surface of the debate that will take place between now and the publication of the White Paper.
  I appreciate the lengths to which the Minister for Social Security went to listen to the views which were expressed and then, with great skill, to skirt around the answers that were sought. The Minister should not rest too much upon this Government's apparent laurels. My most enduring impression of the day when the reviews were published was not of the Secretary of State for Social Services being given a characteristically easy time because of the hysterical reaction of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. It was of several pensioners marching outside carrying placards saying, "Pensioners say 'No' to Fowler".
  When he opened the debate, my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party rightly criticised the lack of figures. The lack of figures in the published volumes compounds the error that was pointed to by many people at the time of the reviews: that they were being conducted on a revenue-neutral basis, which meant that examination of the hidden welfare state provided by tax benefits would be precluded. Therefore, it is difficult to make constructive comments about the suggestions. The Minister for Social Security engaged in an almost theological discussion about the relationship between the financial aspect and the structure at which we should aim. He seemed to be trying to make a virtue out of a vice. At least, he said that the absence of vice in itself constituted a virtue. The Minister claimed that the absence of damning figures about who would lose and at whose expense some gains would be made was to be welcomed. It is rather like the words of the old song:
  "I've danced with a man, who's danced with a girl, who's danced with the Prince of Wales."
  Nobody has seen the culprit but everybody has passed by at some point. The review figures seem to have passed through several hands, but they are not available when we want to debate them.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a similar point. He pointed out that the Government actuaries have been both for and against SERPS. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party said that we could not back the Government's course of action over SERPS because of the way they have gone about it. SERPS was set up after all-party consultation. If it is to be restructured, modified or done away with completely, it should take place only after there has been all-party discussion. We also oppose its modification because there is to be no major increase in the basic flat rate pension. Most people accept that this would be an important counter-balance if there were to be any change in SERPS.

  489
  Finance is one of the great defects of the social security reviews. The social fund will be a major contributor to the view that the public form about the reviews. There is interaction in the social fund between the benefits system and the personal social services. It will be cash limited. A system of discretionary grants and loans will be operated. The Secretary of State for Social Services wants the social fund to be used as a pump-priming mechanism in order to move people through the care in the community programme. This demonstrates that the Government tacitly acknowledge that the amount of money available to help the elderly through the care in the community programme is insufficient, that it is being damaged by the rate capping proposals of the Department of the Environment and that the joint funding arrangements are unsatisfactory because of the tapering financial arrangement and the relationship between the health authorities and the local authorities on account of the local authorities having to shoulder more of the burden. The Government are trying to find an additional source of money to help to prop up joint funding and the financing of the care in the community programme. That highlights the difficulties in funding and the fact that there will be an even greater drain on the social fund, which will be under great pressure.
  The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) spoke about the role of the voluntary organisations. As my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party has said, it is important to remember that much can be done. The voluntary organisations have a great role to play. However, as the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West knows through her patronage of the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants, the role that can be played is threatened and made more difficult by the financial pressure under which the statutory sector now has to operate. Directors of social services who are faced with difficult choices are more likely to reduce or contract in the voluntary rather than in the statutory sector.
  The other points that have come out of the debate are closely linked to what have been described by the Liberal leader as the "pessimistic assumptions" underlying the entire report. In an interview in the Daily Telegraph towards the end of last year, the Leader of the House said that he thought that there was great room for increasing employment in the front-line caring services. Instead of considering further cuts in the social services network, we should be trying to create jobs in that area. Indeed, during the last election campaign, the alliance suggested that 100,000 jobs could be created within the front-line caring services.
  As has been pointed out, more needs to be done to locate, recognise, and then introduce mechanisms of support for those who care for others on an unrecognised and informal basis. The welfare state may be in difficulties now, but it would be in a state of total collapse and disorder without their contribution. The extension of the invalid care allowance to married women is another area in which we should like progress to be made. Unfortunately, however, that seems unlikely as a result of the reviews.
  I appreciate that the Minister will specifically deal with the death grant. The Minister for Social Security stated his concern or objections about the system that we would propose, which would involve a higher £200 or £250 death
  490
  grant, available across the board and reclaimable from the estate. He fairly pointed out that even that would not be enough for some people. But it is surely not beyond the wit of the DHSS to devise a structure whereby at the time of burial and of greatest distress to the relatives and dependants there would be no need to go through the difficulty and indignity of having to make some special application, perhaps subject to interview. They could receive the initial payment as of right. If it then proved to be too much, the money could be reclaimed from the estate, but if the sum proved to be too little, the discretionary element could come in later and additional payments could be made. I do not see why that should sit so uneasily beside the Government's proposals.
  We are glad to have had the opportunity to raise issues concerning the elderly that arise from this week's social security reviews and from the problems which all hon. Members see every day in their constituencies. We are only sorry that social security reviews which could have been radical and genuinely reformist and more redistributive will not be so. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies has already said, the elderly will be one of the groups to suffer most from those reviews.
  The points that have been made, coupled with the difficulties over rent support and having to contribute to a rating system with which the Government themselves are dissatisfied, give us little confidence that the problems of the elderly are fully recognised and appreciated, or that they will receive due attention from the Government. The SDP/Liberal alliance will certainly continue to bring the problems and the priorities of the elderly to the fore both in the House and elsewhere.
  6.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am happy to start on at least one note of agreement with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), in that the debate has been useful and interesting. Within a short time many important points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the 15 minutes left to me, it will obviously be impossibl to reply to all of them, and so I hope that hon. Members-will understand if I do not try to do so. However, I shall certainly try to respond in writing to any points that I cannot touch on now.
  We welcome the use that the Liberal party has made of its Opposition day, particularly as it gives us the opportunity to set the record straight. Since 1979, we have had a proud and creditable record of caring for the elderly. The debate gives us an opportunity, however, to shed yet more light on the important and exciting proposals introduced on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his social security review. But given the opportunity that the Liberals had, it is surprising that they should have decided to focus on such a subject, especially when one considers their record and their collaboration in keeping the Labour Government in office through the notorious Lib-Lab pact. I well understand that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) is doubly responsible, because he was not then in the SDP; he had not forsaken his allegiance to the Labour party. But it is important that people should be reminded again and again of the dangers of inflation. Those dangers apply to everyone, but particularly to the elderly. A party that collaborated with another party that

  491
  succeeded in achieving an inflation rate of 112 per cent. over five and a bit years has much to answer for to the elderly.
  Mr. Steel: I do not wish to lessen the time available to the Minister, but he must recall that during the 18 months of the Lib-Lab pact inflation was reduced from 20 per cent. to 8 per cent.
  Mr. Whitney: I should point out that the hon. Member for Stockton, South was quite happy with the deal when the change from the method of accounting in effect denied over £1 billion in today's terms to this country's pensioners.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has already responded to most of the points raised by the leader of the Liberal party, but he has left me to comment on the personal social services. It is important to put the Government's achievements on the record. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the personal social services are a vital element in the Government's aid to the elderly, and that is why we take great pride in the fact that between 1979–80 and 1983–4 expenditure increased, in real terms, by 18 per cent. For example, net expenditure on local authority residential homes amounted to something approaching £365 million in 1983–84, an increase of about 12 per cent. I could go through the list, and I should be happy to write to the right hon. Member to explain still further the significant increases that have taken place in this sector, which he recognises as important.
  Mrs. Beckett: As this is the second time that Conservative Members have taken credit for the Government's record in social services, I should remind them that most of that record comes from the spending of Labour councils, for which they have been criticised. The Conservative councils have a pretty rotten record.
  Mr. Whitney: If the hon. Lady looks at the facts, she will understand that that is not the case, but I hope that she will not object to the fact that spending has increased by 18 per cent. in real terms. Therefore, it is a little puzzling to know why — except for the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) who seems to have some understanding of the impact of inflation on the pensioners—hon. Members are constantly pressing us for yet more.
  When we talk about pensions, what is referred to as the alliance becomes an even more puzzling creature than it usually is—it is more like a hydra-headed amoeba than an alliance, and most of the heads are quite small. In the Liberal party's response to my right hon. Friend's pension inquiry, it suggested that the target should be to raise the basic pension of a married couple to two thirds the average male earnings. The cost of that would be about£10 billion. It would increase the load of national insurance contributions on employer and employee by about 50 per cent. I wonder whether either pensioners or the working population have any concept of what that Liberal party proposal would mean both for employment and the national economy.
  I understand that there are two separate parties within the alliance, but the puzzle is that there seem to be two parties within the SDP. We were pleased to notice that the SDP spokesman in the other place, Lord Roberthall, recognised the tremendous subject that had been opened up. He said that he wanted
  492
  "to congratulate the Government on grasping this nettle at last, which is so full of promise.
  I think that most important in what the noble Baroness has said is the reference to the problems of the future I think our grandchildren are living in a fool's paradise, because the rapid change in the age structure"—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the hon. Gentleman, but I trust that he is not quoting a Member of the other place.
  Mr. Whitney: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was seeking to paraphrase but it became something more than that.
  The noble Lord was pointing out the dangers of living in a fool's paradise because the rapid change in the age structure means, as was pointed out earlier, a much smaller number of workers having to pay for a larger number of pensions. It is with that problem that we sought to deal through the proposals that we have made on the phasing out of SERPS.
  I am happy to deal with some of the points that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made because clearly she has failed to understand the impact of our present economic commitments. It is necessary for any sensible Government, as has been widely recognised, to take a careful look at these obligations. The assumptions to which the hon. Lady referred showed a wide variation, but the arguments do not rest on these assumptions alone. If SERPS were to continue unchecked, that would earmark a large slice of public expenditure, and not necessarily direct it where it is most needed Part of the cost of SERPS would go to boosting occupational pensions, and the central question is not whether we can afford SERPS, but whether the state should be in the business of providing' second tier pensions.
  Mr. Steen: I do not wish to disturb my hon. Friend's recitative, but will he deal with the point — [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend can hear me above the Liberal party's bad behaviour and rabble-rousing, will he direct his mind to my idea that the Government could save quite a bit of money and do a lot of good in developing family and community care by encouraging elderly people to live at home and giving the people with whom they live tax concessions and benefits?
  Mr. Whitney: I recognise that as an objective, and some of the moves that the Government have made suggest that we are moving in that direction. I am seeking for the figures, which I cannot find, but the community programme that we have already suggests that we are moving in the right direction and that we recognise the importance of that.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise as well that a balance has to be struck. For example, the extension of the invalid care allowance, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security has made clear on a number of occasions, is regarded as one of many desirable objectives. However, the problems of the Government as opposed to those of the SDP or the Liberal or Labour parties is that we have to have the responsibility of making choices. We understand the dangers of inflation, not least to retired people.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South made an interesting claim about the importance of Beveridge. I think that she was seeking for the quotation:
  "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

  493
  However, she seems to be opposed to any proposal that we
  are making within the review to target more effectively the
  available resources. If she would think a little more
  carefully about
  "to each according to his needs";
  she would see that better targeting, which is promised in
  the review, will achieve exactly that.
  I am seeking to answer as many as I can of the important points that have been made, but it will be difficult for me to cover them all in the available time. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye spoke about the need for integration of taxes and benefits, and we recognise that as a desirable objective in many ways. However, there are serious problems, with which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking forward to dealing.
  There has been much talk of Beveridge and I refer hon. Members and particularly the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale to what Sir William Beveridge, himself a Liberal, said:
  "The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family."
  Those are the objectives that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's review will achieve.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 267.

  Division No. 230]

  [7 pm

  .AYES

  Alton, David

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Anderson, Donald

  Craigen, J. M.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnett, Guy

  Dobson, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Dormand, Jack

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Dubs, Alfred

  Bell, Stuart

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Benn, Tony

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Evans, John (St, Helens N)

  Blair, Anthony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Forrester, John

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle—u—Tyne E)

  Foster, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Foulkes, George

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Freud, Clement

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clarke, Thomas

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clay, Robert

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Haynes, Frank

  Cohen, Harry

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Coleman, Donald

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Geraint

  Cowans, Harry

  Hoyle, Douglas

  494

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Penhaligon, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pike, Peter

  Hume, John

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Prescott, John

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Randall, Stuart

  John, Brynmor

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Johnston, Russell

  Robertson, George

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charlesv

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kilroy—Silk, Robert

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Snape, Peter

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Soley, Clive

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  McCartney, Hugh

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McCrea, Rev William

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Strang, Gavin

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Straw, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Madden, Max

  Torney, Tom

  Marek, DrJohn

  Wallace, James

  Martin, Michael

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Maxton, John

  Wareing, Robert

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Weetch, Ken

  Meacher, Michael

  Welsh, Michael

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mikardo, Ian

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wilson, Gordon

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Woodall, Alec

  Nellist, David

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. A. J. Beith and

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mr. John Cartwright.

  Patchett, Terry

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

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

  Alexander, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Amess, David

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Ancram, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Tom

  Conway, Derek

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Simon

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Cope, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Beggs, Roy

  Critchley, Julian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Crouch, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Benyon, William

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Douglas—Hamilton, Lord J.

  Biggs—Davison, Sir John

  Dunn, Robert

  Blackburn, John

  Durant, Tony

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Emery, Sir Peter

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

  Evennett, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Favell, Anthony

  Brinton, Tim

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Forth, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Franks, Cecil

  Butterfill, John

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Freeman, Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gale, Roger

  Cash, William

  Galley, Roy

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  495

  Gorst, John

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Gow, Ian

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Greenway, Harry

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Gregory, Conal

  Lennox—Boyd, Hon Mark

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Lester, Jim

  Ground, Patrick

  Lilley, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Luce, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  McCrindle, Robert

  Hanley, Jeremy

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Hannam, John

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Major, John

  Harris, David

  Maples, John

  Harvey, Robert

  Mather, Carol

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Maxwell—Hyslop, Robin

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hayes, J.

  Mellor, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heddle, John

  Moore, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hirst, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Newton, Tony

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Holt, Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd—on—A)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

  Hubbard—Miles, Peter

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert

  Powley, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Tim

  Kellett—Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ryder, Richard

  Knox, David

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lamont, Norman

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lang, Ian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  496

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shepherd, Richard (A/dridge)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Waddington, David

  Silvester, Fred

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  Walden, George

  Skeet, T. H. H

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Spencer, Derek

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Ward, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Steen, Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stern, Michael

  Watson, John

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Watts, John

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wheeler, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitney, Raymond

  Sumberg, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Donald (Ca/der V)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (N'lch N)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mr. Tristan Garel—Jones and

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved.,
  That this House recognises the Government's achievement in increasing the value of the retirement pension and welcomes, the Government's continued commitment to protect its value, congratulates the Government on carrying out a thorough review of the social security system, and endorses the aim of ensuring a coherent and soundly based benefit structure to meet the needs of pensioners and others.

  Wages Councils
  7.12 pm
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I beg to move,
  That this House agrees with the conclusion of the
  Employment Committee that wages councils should not be
  abolished.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Penhaligon: The legislation on wages councils is of some maturity. It dates back to 1909, which shows a level of endurance, and, I believe, a civilisation by Parliament. We believe that the legislation enshrined in the law the concept that within our capitalist, entrepreneurial society there will be a level beyond which people will not be exploited. That was fundamental to the argument in 1909, and it is fundamental to the argument that I wish to present today. That argument was good enough for the House in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, but today we live in a different era. Even such basic concepts as that have to be argued and fought for.
  In principle, the wages councils set for several categories of employees minimum rates of pay and minimum employment conditions that should be obeyed. Most of the regulations insist upon adult pay rates of about £65 to £72 a week. A single person receiving that would have a take-home pay of £61 a week and a married man £65 a week. The average for the whole lot is just short of £70 a week.
  The issue whether we should abolish or reform has, in one form or another, been the subject of political debate and argument for a least two or three years. The Government played with it under pressure from their own Back Benches, and eventually produced a consultative document, which comes up with the alternatives of abolish or reform. Everyone in the House knows what abolition means; that is a simple state to deal with. However, reform can mean anything. It can mean virtual abolition. At the same time, it can mean a great extension and strengthening, so I suppose that the optimist in me must say that there is at least some hope for a civilisation on this issue.
  Several arguments are paraded in favour of abolition. The favourite one, in the era in which we live, is not surprising—it is jobs. Various documents and economic theories suggest that if there were a 1 per cent. reduction in average pay that would create up to about 150,000 jobs. Therefore, one does not lightly dismiss arguments in this area. It is worth remembering relative to the figures of £65 to £72 a week that average pay is currently £178 a week. My hon. Friends and I believe that some wage settlements currently being made mitigate against the national recovery, and certainly against a reduction in unemployment. That is my honest, candid view. However, those pay increases are in the higher categories. They are not for the people earning the income that I have mentioned. We believe that if one extrapolates that basic argument, in which there is some truth, to this category, it is standing all logic on its head, and possibly putting several people in a position that we find unacceptable.
  As I have said, we do not dismiss the possibility that there is some substance in the argument to which I have just referred. However, we find little evidence that
  498
  reducing wage rates from between £65 and £72 a week to between £55 and £62 a week would create a significant number of extra new jobs. The best estimate that I can find is that if the wages councils were abolished 8,000 jobs would be produced. To put it in perspective, that is fewer than 16 jobs per constituency. Average unemployment is now over 5,000 per constituency. Even if that figure underestimated reality by a factor of two, 32 jobs relative to 5,000 is of very little significance.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Department of Employment has given me the following figures in relation to the average wages of young people, at whom is often aimed the assertion that if their wages were reduced more jobs could be created? The average wage for school leavers relative to adult rates has fallen by 8 per cent. for boys and 12 per cent. for girls during the lifetime of this Government, yet youth unemployment has trebled. In other words, the evidence from the Department showing falling wage rates has shown no increase in employment but a trebling of unemployment.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I have seen those figures before somewhere. It might be because the hon. Gentleman produced them. I shall refer to youth pay. I do not totally dismiss what the hon. Gentleman says.
  A few people believe that the abolition of wages councils would allow pay to increase. I have heard few hon. Members argue that in the House. I do not know whether that is the view of the Minister or his Department. I regard it as fantasy of the first order.
  Let us ask ourselves what would happen if wages councils were abolished. What evidence can one produce? The truth is that little can be produced. I believe that their abolition would reduce pay. Many low-paid jobs are already not covered by wages councils. One can examine the pay structure in that area and judge what might happen in similar jobs that happen to be inside wages councils. Let me give the Minister an example. In my constituency, a young woman who is a qualified florist came to see me. She had been through the course to become a florist, and was highly regarded in that skill. Her employment boiled down to preparing wreaths and sprays and making the flowers that are grown in my part of the country, among others, into a more attractive item to persuade people to part with their money. In another part of the same enterprise. a young woman of similar age works behind the counter of the shop.
  Reason suggests that the person behind the scenes doing the skilled work should be paid more than the person behind the counter taking the orders, but that is not so because the young woman on the counter is defended by the wages council to the tune of £67 to £72 per week whereas the other is not. I believe that if wages councils were abolished many more people would be in the position of the qualified florist who is paid less than her colleague at the counter.
  Mr. John Butterfill: I believe that 17 wages councils have been abolished since 1960. Can the hon. Gentleman give evidence to show that wages in those industries have been reduced?
  Mr. Penhaligon: One of the wages councils that were abolished protected the minimum pay of whalebone corset manufacturers. From observation in my constituency and

  499
  in the House, I suspect that the outlet for those products is somewhat limited nowadays, so the three people still making them may well be paid less than in the past.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: The wages council for the cutlery industry was abolished in 1969.
  Mr. John Evans: Why was it abolished?
  Mr.Baldry: It was abolished because it was thought that under the legislation collective bargaining was adequate to protect the employees in that industry, but research by the Department of Employment into the impact of abolition concluded that there had been no significant improvement in wage determination, no catching up with the rates achieved by voluntary collective bargaining in similar industries and, indeed, sufficient evidence of underpayment of female workers to suggest that protection had deterioriated since abolition.
  Mr.Deputy Speaker(Mr.Ernest Armstrong):
  Order. There are three Front-Bench speakers in this short debate and a number of other hon. Members wish to catch my eye. Interventions from Members waiting to catch my eye do not improve their chances of doing so.
  Mr. Penhaligon: One likes to encourage maximum participation on these occasions, but I think that there have been five speeches so far, and I note your comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Another example of which I have experience is the village sub-post office with a retailing business attached. If an employee's duties include the selling of Mars bars and the like, that person is defended by a wages council to the tune of £67 to £72 per week; but the person employed only behind the post office counter dealing with large amounts of state money in pensions and benefits is not protected and in many cases the wages are lower. There are many other examples. I know of tyre fitters being paid between £45 and £50 per week.
  It may be argued that these are fringe examples and that hard cases make bad law, but I argue that they are not fringe cases. The Minister's own document states that of the 2·7 million people covered by wages councils about 1 million earn the wages council minimum or just a pittance more, so all those people are influenced by wages council settlements. With regard to the impact on employment, subparagraph 8 of the Government document states that
  "those figures suggest that the wages council rates are now higher than would be necessary to recruit and retain workers."
  That is the Government's own view, and I agree with it entirely. There is thus no argument between us and the Minister — there may be some argument from Conservative Back Benchers, although not from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—that the abolition of wages councils will do anything other than reduce wages. In this context, I remind the House that we are talking about minimum wages of £67 to £72 per week.
  There are a couple of documents supporting abolition. The document submitted by the Institute of Directors advocates outright abolition. I put some energy into trying to discover any categorisation of directors' pay in the new earnings survey but was unable to do so. I suspect, however, that their earnings are nearer £70 per day than £70 per week. The institute baldly states that 54 per cent. of its members believe that they would employ more people if wages councils were abolished.
  500
  One does not simply dismiss evidence of that calibre, so let us consider the way in which that magnificent figure was produced. Of the 2,000 members of the institute consulted about the Government's document relating to abolition, only 130 responded, 30 per cent, of whom said they had no experience and therefore no knowledge of this area and thus had no strong view one way or the other. The great Institute of Directors survey thus comes down to just 91 people's responses, 70 of whom said that they might take on more staff. That is 3½£ per cent. of the institute's membership, not the 54 per cent. suggested on the front page of the submission.
  That is a disgracefully shoddy piece of work by a body which, on the whole, one respects and it shows no interest in or understanding of the circumstances that we are discussing. If the business decisions of members of the Institute of Directors are based on such flimsy evidence, it is no wonder that Britain is in trouble. Some of them should try living on £70 per week rather than £70 per day.
  The other substantial body in favour of abolition is the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, which tends to major on the complexity of some wages council regulations. Paragraph 12 of the Government document refers to a set of wages council regulations comprising 30 pages of closely typed instructions, and the wages inspectorate concluded that half the underpayments discovered in its random survey —not its detailed survey—were due more to ignorance than to malice, and that is the wages councils' own view. That suggests that there is room for simplification, so I do not defend every detail of the present situation.
  The wages councils' own evidence states that 35 per cent. of visits found evidence of underpayment That figure contrasts with the 6 per cent. found in the random survey, but visits occur largely when problems have been brought to the attention of a wages council by employees, other employers or, no doubt, Members of Parliameni. I make no complaint about that. One recognises that the sample for visits is skewed and I do not know whether the figures are exactly 35 per cent. or 6 per cent., but let us take the 6 per cent. It shows beyond question that the current regulations are more complicated than they need be. Therefore, some simplification may be suitable.
  Some of the members of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses to whom I talk are aware that, in many cases, the wages councils protect them. If, for example, business A is offering the community a service and paying its employees £70 a week, and business B comes along to compete and pays its employees £50 a week, I have news for the owner of business A: he is likely to be in some difficulty fairly soon. Many people recognise that, at the end of the economy, wages councils operate to their advantage.
  Some of those who claim that they could produce extra jobs if wages councils were abolished seem to base that suggestion on their ability to undercut their compelitors. They say, "If I pay my employees £60 a week, I can employ more, because I will undercut the man up the road and grab some of his business." The employer up the road is likely to hit back in the obvious way. Therefore, I believe that few jobs will be created by the abolition of the wages councils.
  The major complaint is about wages for the young. I note that all the categories of business pay what is called in the document the adult rate at the age of 18, excent for the boot and shoe repair industry, which pays it at 20; the

  501
  hairdressing industry, which pays it at 20; the retail food trade, which pays it at 19; and the sack and bag industry, which also pays it at 19. Logic suggests that if an employer is given a choice between employing a 28-year-old with eight or 10 years' experience, and an 18-year-old with only one or two years' experience, at the same rate of pay, regardless of all the surveys and the comments of the philosophers who analyse such matters, the 28-year-old stands a better chance of getting a job.
  Part of the problem is that we define adulthood legally as the age of 18, but an 18-year-old is not always trained and experienced. In other European countries, the main rate recommended by minimum wage legislation — Britain is by no means unique in having such legislation is paid only to older people. For example, in
  Denmark, the consolidated rate is paid at the age of 23.
  I believe that that is too old, and would suggest 21 as the
  most suitable age. However, I warn the House that
  changes in this area will not create more jobs. All that will
  happen is the substitution of mature workers by younger
  workers, but there is some justification for arguing that the
  system should be changed. In some areas, the consolidated
  →or experienced—rate should apply to 21-year-olds,
  not to 18 or 19-year-olds.
  Some believe that the Government will abolish all protection for those aged under 21. That would go tragically too far. The justification for this legislation is that it protects the vulnerable in society, and we all know that probably the most vulnerable section of society is the under-21s. It stands logic on its head to abolish protection for them. Furthermore, if protection is removed completely, when many people reach the age of 21 they will be sacked. Hon. Members should realise that some people suddenly lose their jobs simply because they have moved up a bracket in the pay range. I beg the Secretary of State not to introduce as a compromise the scrapping of regulations governing employees aged under 21.
  Mr. Baldry: What proportion of the adult rate would the hon. Gentleman suggest those aged between 16 and 21 should get? At present, 22 of the 26 wages councils pay a disproportionately higher rate to young people than 16-year-olds receive elsewhere in the economy.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I have made it clear that there is some necessity for movement in that area. I do not dodge the hon. Gentleman's question. However, he cannot expect me to come up with a figure for wages should the basic regulations be changed. That is a matter for negotiation by the wages councils within their spheres of influence. But if the House says that it wishes the consolidated rate to operate from the age of 21, I believe that action would be taken to implement it.
  The Secretary of State produced a consultative document mainly to try to quell the hard core on the Conservative Back Benches. He knows already that the Select Committee on Employment is against total abolition. The Auld report, at page 66, came out firmly against abolition of the wages councils. The CBI is against it. One is not surprised, but one does not dismiss it for that, that the Low Pay Unit and the Child Poverty Action Group are against it. The Labour party, the Liberal party, the Social Democratic party and the nationalist parties are all against total abolition. The citizens' advice bureaux are certainly against abolition, and they have day-to-day
  502 experience of dealing with the problems that arise in this area. The British Institute of Management is against abolition.
  There could be a much more intelligent debate on the subject if the Government accepted the Liberal motion, which is simplicity itself. Let us make it clear that total abolition is not an option, and that doing nothing is not an option. Between those two extremes, we could have a much more sane, sensible and civilised debate. We believe that there is a case for simplification, and that not all workers are experienced and mature at the age of 19, but that there is no case for abolition. Indeed, it may be worth considering an improvement in the endorsement procedure in some areas.
  The Liberal party has used one of its rare Supply days to raise this subject because it believes that the Parliament of our capitalist, competititive society should send out the clear message that there is a point beyond which people shall not be exploited. The miserable wages that we are defending range between £65 and £72 a week. The alliance is defending that, but the Government, by issuing their consultation paper, are attacking it, or at least putting it under scrutiny. The Secretary of State probably agrees with much of what I said, but some of the hard men on the Conservative Back Benches will have different views.
  This legislation was good from the 1920s to the 1970s. It is a reflection on our Government, on the era in which we live and on the ideas that are foisted upon the British people that we must spend parliamentary time defending such miserable wages. I invite the House to vote for our motion and to clear up this matter once and for all.
  7.38 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'notes that the period for consultation on the consultative document on wages councils is only just ending and representations are still being received; and asks the Government to take into account the views of the Employment Committee, together w ith the very many other responses from interested organisations and individuals.'.
  The Government's amendment makes it clear why we cannot accept the motion introduced by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). We do not intend to set aside, at the moment of their reception, the many representations and comments that have been made in response to our consultative document. Despite the hyperbole of his peroration, the hon. Gentleman must realise that it would be a disgrace for the House—I hope that the Liberal party would have nothing to do with it—to treat with contempt the representations of people who are informed and involved. They will certainly be considered by the Government, although the hon. Gentleman seems to be prepared to ignore them.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that 31 May was the date set for the end of the consultation period. We are just ending that consultation period, and six further serious representations were made today. They are still coming in, and I am sure that the House would wish us to continue to consider all the representations that can be taken into account, even if, technically, they fall just outside the deadline. I hope that all those who believe in a serious consultation of this nature will support our amendment and realise that that must be the right way to proceed.
  As I have said, we are still receiving a massive number of representations. The lunch-time score today was 667.

  503
  I therefore welcome the opportunity provided by this debate for the House to make its comments, and I shall certainly take note of them.
  I apologise for the fact that there has been a discontinuity of Ministers. There was a debate in the early hours of the morning during the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund, but at present my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is attending a meeting of the ILO in Geneva. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept me as an inadequate substitute for him on this occasion.
  The House will recall the background to the consultative document. It was originally announced in the Budget speech as part of a range of measures specifically targeted towards the issue of unemployment. It will also be recalled that in the Budget debate the Chancellor and I announced a series of measures, including the development of the two-year youth training scheme, the expansion of a further 100,000 places in the community programme to help the long-term unemployed and new pilot projects as a means of providing further valuable work for the long-term unemployed. They include schemes managed by the private sector and those that involve work in charities.
  We also looked at ways in which we could remove any obstacles to the creation of the maximum number of jobs. In that connection, there was a general welcome in the House for the proposals to reduce the starting rate for national insurance contributions at the lower level as a means of reducing the cost of taking on new employees. In addition, we have tried to ease the burden or remove any obstacle which might exist in relation to employment protection. That has already been carried through. We also identified the problem of the wages councils. As a result, I announced our proposals and published a consultative paper.
  In the Budget debate I set out the reasons why the Government believed that the changes were needed. As we know, wages councils specify rates of pay and detailed conditions for 2·75 million workers in 26 industries. The hon. Member for Truro said that the system was first introduced in 1909, against a background of much public concern about "sweating", the three components of which were inadequate wage rates, excessive hours of labour and the insanitary state of the houses in which the work was carried out. That was the background against which the original trade boards were established.
  However, economic conditions have changed sig-nificantly since that time. The welfare state has been established, real average pay is much higher and average hours of work are much lower. There is now an extensive range of legislation aimed at protecting the welfare and health and safety of employees. The development of systems for family support—and the further developments announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services are relevant in that regard— has made a significant new impact on the situation.
  I have said that one of the original concerns was the extremely long hours of work, but it is worth remembering that two thirds of the employees covered by wages councils are part-time workers. A significant number produce a second family income, paniclarly women who work part-time and represent a significant number of those covered by wages councils.
  The system has developed piecemeal and is extremely uneven in its application. I read with interest the article in
  504
  The Guardian by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), and it is without offence that I say that the speech of the hon. Member for Truro covered many of the points made in that article. However, I challenge hon. Members to walk down any high street in the country and to identify which shops are covered by wages councils and which are not. The application of wages councils is piecemeal, and it is extremely difficult to identify any great distinction between those for whom the wages councils are supposed to provide protection and those for whom they do not operate.
  Mr. Ray Powell: I am one of two elected Members who represent 400,000 shop workers. How many of them will not be covered if wages councils are abolished? Why are the Government not prepared to accept the Auld report's recommendation on the retention of the wages councils?
  Mr. King: I am, of course, aware of that relationship, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already made our position clear. In advance of legislation on the Auld report, the Government recognise the need to make clear their position on wages councils As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that was raised in the Auld report.
  Against that background, a range of complaints is widely recognised. One concern often expressed is the problem of the levels of pay of young people, and there is evidence that they are above the going rate that may exist in other industries. The mistake that was made by the hon. Member for Truro—it was a point in his right hon. Friend's article with which I disagreed—was to suggest that somehow there would be competition for a job between a 28-year-old at a fixed rate of pay and a 17-year-old at the same rate of pay. Instead, we should consider whether there is an alternative job at a lower rate of pay. I make no apology for saying that, because in Germany and other countries rates of between 30 and 40 per cent. of adult pay are considered reasonable as the starting rate. That gets more young people into jobs. However, so long as the adult rate is satisfactory, the problem of the starting rate for young people must be looked at very seriously. It should not just be considered in the context of substitution between the older and the younger person.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that people at that age and with such a short amount of experience cannot possibly be worth the amount which employers are asked to pay at that stage in their working lives? Is it not totally unrealistic to force an employer to pay more money than an employee is actually worth?
  Mr. John Prescott: Do not be so arrogant, you mean and silly woman.
  Mr. King: I am appalled by the reception giver to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). It is obvious that Opposition Members do not understand that in certain cases what she said is undoubtedly true. In certain cases, a 16-year-old is not worth £55 a week when starting out. I am anxious that youngsters should get training and jobs. It is acceptable to trade unions and all political parties in, for example, West Germany that youngsters should start on about £27 a week. Why is there much lower youth unemployment there?

  505
  Why do some people here, who are living in the past, insist on negotiating wages of £50 or £60 a week? By doing that, they are condemning a lot of young people to unemployment. I care about that and about a blinkered attitude which just shouts down a perfectly constructive comment.
  There are anxieties about the wages councils and about the complexity and length of the reports. The wages inspectors bear out the fact that many offences arise out of misunderstandings because of the length of the reports. Considerable difficulties have been caused by the practice of some wages councils of making retrospective awards. Employers suddenly discover that they have a bill for which they have not budgeted.
  As the hon. Member for Truro said, employment is at the heart of this debate. We put employment at the top of our list of priorities. Every responsible right hon. and hon. Member must take that view. We have decided that there is an urgent need to tackle the problem of unemployment by abolition or reform of wages councils. We have had a staggering response to our consultation document. I do not wish to anticipate what conclusions we should draw, but I should like to give a summary of the responses. I acknowledge the response of the Select Committee on Employment and the minority report of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). We had 667 responses by lunch-time today, and they are still coming in.
  The Trades Union Congress and the unions have made clear their opposition to abolition, although some unions have joined the reform lobby because they think that simplification is important for more effective enforcement. Employers, the Institute of Directors and the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses obviously favour abolition. The Confederation of British Industry has suggested abolition, unless there is a request from both sides to retain wages councils, but maintains that there should nevertheless be radical simplification. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce wants radical reform. There is significant pressure in the hotel and catering industry for abolition. Organisations which advocate reform but not abolition have concentrated on issues mentioned in the consultation paper, such as the exclusion of young people, the setting of a percentage of the adult rate as a maximum, simplification involving a single rate for adults, amalgamations or reductions in the numbers of wages councils, and the elimination of retrospection and of independent members as a means of simplifying the operations of wages councils.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Has my right hon. Friend considered representations on behalf of the 3 million unemployed, because they suffer most from the effects of wages councils?
  Mr. King: It is precisely because of the potential for extra jobs that we are considering the matter. The consultation period is ending. We have received many representations and we are reviewing them, so the debate comes at an opportune moment.
  Mr. Michael Foot: As the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to give us some of the figures, will he tell us how many representations he has received in favour of outright abolition?
  Mr. King: I have only the figure of representations received—667 I have picked out a few views which are already public [HON MEMBERS "Ah1"] There IS no secret about this I shall be anxious to disclose the results of the consultation Representations are still coming in We have received six more today I do not have a breakdown, but the right hon Gentleman knows that the total includes representations from major institutions such as the CBI and the TUC We have had one representation from the alliance A Liberal councillor has written to us That is the only representation that we have had from the alliance so far, and I welcome it That is why the debate has been so valuable It is important to measure the merits or quality as well as the numbers of representations.
  I am sure that the House agrees that it is important to reach an early decision With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate In the meantime, I shall listen with interest.
  7 47 pm
  Ms. Clare ShortI should like to make clear the Labour party's opposition to the threatened abolition of wages councils We have outlined our stance in our amendment, which states that the Labour party
  "rejects the Government's claim that reducing the pay and conditions of low-paid workers will create more jobs, condemns the Government's deliberate weakening of the Wages Inspectorate by cutting their numbers by one-third — the Government are already undermining the system and now we are discussing whether it should be undermined further—"
  "thus encouraging bad employers to break the law"
  We hear much from the Government about law and order and respect for the law, but there are some laws such as those which are supposed to protect the wages of the lowest paid for which they have no respect As the motion continues, the Labour party
  "calls for the strengthening of wages councils to improve the protection of these workers, most of whom are women, young people and ethnic minorities "
  It was not clear whether the hon Member for Truro (Mr Penhaligon) spoke for the Liberal party or for the alliance, but the motion is enormously weak The Government have manipulated the press and public opinion time and again—then- method seems to work, although it is crude They always threaten more than they intend to do, and do less I do not believe that they intend to abolish all wages councils That would be too unpopular and they would pay too high a political price They intend to exempt major groups from their protection—young people and perhaps part-time women workers—and to undermine further the system which they have already weakened by cuts in the inspectorate It is clear from the consultative document that this is one possibility that the Government are considering The Liberal motion says-nothing about that, perhaps because of the difference on this question between the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party As usual, there seem to be grave differences between the two parties
  On 23 May 1985, writing in The Times, the leader of the Social Democratic party told us how new technology could lead to full employment and jobs for everyone—a thesis with which I agree He said that there is one grave threat to the possibility of the restoration of full employment, and that is that some of the new jobs will be low-paid jobs in the services sector He said:

  507
  "not all new jobs in the service sector will be high-skilled, high value-added, high-wage jobs. Along with the professional jobs and the jobs in IT will also be a lot of traditionally lower wage jobs in areas such as fast foods, retailing and health care.
  This has two critical policy implications. It is imperative not to prevent these jobs emerging by minimum wage legislation".
  There is minimum wage legislation in the wages council system. On 23 February, the leader of the Social Democratic party was not in favour of minimum wage legislation. I have always suspected that he makes up his party's policies in the bath and announces different policies depending upon how he feels.
  The National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers is deeply worried about the prospect of the abolition of wages councils. It represents workers in the textile industry who work in sweatshops— some of which are in my constituency—which are increasing in number. The union has sent us a letter that the leader of the Social Democratic party sent to one union member. On 22 May, the day before the article in The Times, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be in favour of retaining wages councils but thought there might be scope for reform. He thought there should be less protection for school leavers and people with a second income. We know that he meant women but, just to show that the Social Democratic party favours sexual equality, the right hon. Gentleman referred to
  "perhaps the second wage earners in the family household— male or female—if wages were more flexible."
  Mr. Thurnham: May I help the hon. Lady with some comments on the Liberal party's views? She mentioned the garment industry. I think that she would accept that the wages of garment workers are determined by the world prices of their goods. The Liberal party has differing views on world prices — the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) says one thing about the multi-fibre agreement and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) says the opposite.
  Ms. Short: I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants all controls to be abolished. I suppose that he wants Britain's textile workers to compete for wages with workers in Bangladesh.
  The leader of the Social Democratic party seems unable to make up his mind between one day and another whether he favours any minimum wage legislation. On Monday 3 June, in an article on the agenda page in The Guardian,as a trailer for this debate, the leader of the Liberal party tells us that we must retain and expand wages councils. A major difference between the views of the two parties is found in that statement. He stated:
  "there is definitely a case for saying that wages councils may"
  "may" is an interesting word—
  "deter some firms from taking on young people by insisting that they are paid the same £63–£72 per week as older employees." The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that young people must be paid the adult rate. It seems that young people should be exempted from the protection offered by wages councils.
  The Government assert that the evidence suggests that abolition or major reform is needed. When the Government discuss reform in the consultative document, they mean further weakening of the wages council system. Let us be in no doubt about that. The Government assert that weakening the system or abolition will produce jobs. Despite enormous efforts by the Government to produce evidence to support this prejudiced and dogmatic view, as
  508
  Centre Forward calls it, the Government have failed to produce convincing evidence of this case The Select Committee's report shows that clearly, stating in paragraph 17:
  "Thus the empirical evidence submitted to the Select Committee does not provide unambiguous support for the notion that the elimination of Wages Councils would have the sort of employment effect which would provide an overwhelming case for abolition."
  In paragraph 19, the Select Committee states:
  "Ministers did not give an estimate of the increase in the number of jobs which might be expected to result from abol ition, when pressed to do so in respect of young people, they were unable to the message was try it and see'."
  Why do we not try it? Why do we not cut the wages le vels of people on £60 a week, just in case it will provide a few jobs? That is the proposition that is put before us.
  It is incredible how the Government have managed to make the senior Civil Service — an old part of the British establishment—so deviant that it constantly leaks documents One leaked document tells us something very interesting The Government have been trying to move in this direction since taking office in 1979 The Government keep commissioning research that does not prove their case If Ministers will not act as desired, it is a case of chuck them out, get new academics and Ministers and try again Here we are, the third time round In a minute dated 12 February 1981, Mr M Wake says that, in November 1980 — the Government got on to this matter quite quickly after 1979:
  "E(EA) Committee… accepted the Secretary of State s arguments for retaining the Wages Council system:"
  A report covered by the minutes states:
  "The mter-Departmental report by officials which was considered by Ministers at E(EA)"—
  that is a Cabinet employment sub-committee—
  "found no evidence of any significant loss of employment directly attributable to the setting up of minimum rates by wages councils."
  It seems that the Cabinet was persuaded Following that decision, the Secretary of State was asked to "examine whether it might be possible to remove young people and part-time workers from the scope of Wages Council awards The draft paper prepared for submission to that Cabinet sub-committee shows the conclusions of the review by the Secretary of State It states
  "The case for exclusion is based on the suggestion that job opportunities for young persons and part time workers would be increased if employers were free to take them on at less than the statutory minimum rates set by the wages councils When made, the suggestion usually comes from small shopkeepers."
  There are more and more of them in the House.
  "Exclusion of these groups has not been advocated by the employers' associations represented on the Councils (including those predominantly representing small businesses) although the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd has recently urged the total abolition of the wages council system
  The facts are that statutory minimum rates for young pe sons and part timers are lower than comparable collectively barg lined rates, and rates actually paid frequently exceed the statutory minima In practice, therefore, there is unlikely to be any very significant scope generally for increasing job opportunities thereby To whatever extent this did happen, it would be largely at the expense of the jobs of full-time adult bread-winners'—
  that means throwing the parents out of work and giving the low paid work to their kids, this is the way in which we are going forward to Britain in the 1990s—
  "since there is no plausible evidence that it would significantly increase job opportunities overall in the wages council sectors "
  That Secretary of State — no longer a member of the Government—was asked to review the question whether

  509
  wage councils should be abolished. He reviewed an interdepartmental report and found that there was no case for abolition. The Cabinet committee accepted that. He was asked to look at the possibility of excluding young workers and part-time workers and found that there was absolutely no case for it. But he was thrown out, so here we are looking at it the second or third time round. The Government were determined. If the facts did not fit their prejudices, never mind, kick out the Minister and try again, commission more research and find some academics who will say the right thing.
  Yesterday the Low Pay Unit issued a briefing which makes very serious allegations about the way that the Department of Employment has been conducting its academic research. The briefing was prepared by Mr. Frank Wilkinson, a research economist at Cambridge university, who has carried out a number of research studies for the Department of Employment over the years. We understand what it means to that man. He will not carry out any more research studies while this Government are in power, so obviously he really means what he says in his report.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Short: I am sorry; I am very short of time.
  Mr. Wilkinson makes the serious charge that the Government are fabricating and distorting the evidence that comes from the research that they commission. I will briefly summarise the case that he made.
  The Department of Employment commissioned a study of the effects of the retailing wages council from independent academics, but when the results became available last year they were embarrassing. Contrary to ministerial researches, the research found that minimum wages had had no effect on employment.
  The Department of Employment did not publish the report until this May, and in the meantime hurriedly assembled its own report on the effect of wages councils in the clothing industry, which it then published on the same day. The clothing report came to remarkable conclusions for an industry in which relative wages had fallen since the 1950s by 20 per cent. for men and 13 per cent. for women. The Department of Employment concluded that wages were to blame for unemployment. Mr. Wilkinson points out that that conclusion could have been reached only by the improper use of data and a muddled methodology. Certainly the report bears all the signs of being put together very quickly and with a decided lack of competence.
  The Department of Employment report ignored completely the effect of falling demand and imports in looking for an explanation of the decline of the clothing industry, preferring instead to place the blame on the industry's wages councils, but its conclusion is at odds with the perception of firms within the industry, 86 per cent. of which attributed the fall in employment to lack of demand and import penetration. So much for the research that we now get from the Department of Employment.
  The final point from Mr. Wilkinson is that, using methodology and data considerably more reliable than that used in the Department of Employment study of clothing, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food analysed the impact of the minimum wage for farm workers. The report concluded that an increase in the value of the
  510
  minimum wage increased both the demand for and the supply of labour, and hence employment Again, the findings were in complete contradiction of the views of Ministers on the effect of minimum wages The Department of Employment is quite unjustified in suggesting that the research findings demonstrate convincingly the potential for minimum wage increases to affect employment adversely The Department is saying exactly the opposite of what it found in its research
  Mr. Jim Lester:Will the hon Lady give way.
  Ms. Short: No, I am so short of time [Interruption ] I am not scared of Conservative Members I may give way later if I find that I can get through my speech in time [Interruption ] I have more to say than the Secretary of State On the Labour Benches we care about the wage levels of low-paid people Conservative Members can sit there smugly and richly while wanting to cut the wages of people who work 40 hours a week for £67.
  The consultative document produced by the Government is enormously biased It does not ask openly for a discussion of the effect of wages councils, whether they destroy jobs or not, or whether people want them to be strengthened, weakened or modified In the light of the research evidence, what the consultative document says is disgraceful Paragraph 7 says that
  "Wages councils interfere with the freedom of employers to offer, and jobs-seekers to accept, jobs at wages that would otherwise be acceptable This restricts job opportunities, particularly for young people".
  Paragraph 8 says that
  "A number of studies support the view that statutory minimum rates jeopardise employment."
  I have just dealt with the studies that prove that statement to be wrong.
  Tory Back Benchers pretend that they care about the low paid, but they are quite prepared to sacrifice young people on the altar They are going for the young people The consultative documents suggest that they should be removed from protection, even if the wages councils stay That means that, even if we retain wages councils, we must denounce the International Labour Organisation convention But what does the ILO tell us about the position in the rest of the world? It says that
  "Almost all countries in the world now operate minimum wage systems, and none to our knowledge excludes young workers The latter are entitled to such protection as any workers, and even more so because they are more vulnerable to possible exploitation due to their inexperience and perhaps because of their very desire to earn a living by finding a first job "
  Since 1979 — [Interruption] Conservative Members should look at the evidence instead of showing their prejudices Since 1979 youth unemployment has doubled but the relative pay of young people has fallen sharply over the same period Young males have received pay rises 23 per cent lower than the average increase for adult males Young women's pay has fallen 20 per cent behind the equivalent increase for adults.
  A Department of Employment research — [Interruption ] I have only 15 minutes and Conservative Members will have their opportunity later A Department of Employment research paper, published in 1980, concluded that
  "variations in youth unemployment do not appear to have any systematic relationship with changes in the relative earnings of young people".
  That is a fine piece of research by a man called Makeham It shows that youth unemployment grows faster than

  511
  general unemployment and that it falls faster when unemployment is falling. It has nothing to do with wage levels, and there is no evidence for that.
  A more recent paper, published by the Department of Employment in 1983, contradicts the earlier finding. This is one of those pieces of academic research that the Department of Employment hunted for in trying to find some academic who would provide a case in support of its prejudices. The paper tentatively suggests that the employment of young people under 18 years of age appears to have been reduced by increases in their average earnings. The author warns, however, that the analysis relies on data which are already fraught with problems and that therefore the results are extremely tenuous. His warning that the results should be viewed with caution appears to have been wholly ignored by Ministers, and it has been quoted in this House repeatedly. The final point in that piece of research is that, to the extent that cuts in youth wages did result in new jobs, that would be largely at the expense of adult workers. What is the point of that?
  The Department of Employment study that I have just quoted estimates that eight out of 10 new jobs created for young people, if their wages were cut, would be jobs lost by adults. It costs more to keep an adult on the dole, so it does not even make economic sense from the Government's point of view.
  The Public Accounts Committee found that 77 per cent. of the jobs subsidised under the young workers' scheme that the Government are now getting rid of, but which was deliberately used to try to cut youth wages, would have existed anyway, even without the subsidy. The vast bulk of the additional jobs that were created were taken away from adults.
  It is not just that there is no case for abolition of wages councils, or weakening the position of young people or excluding them. There is a strong case against doing so, not just on the basis of social justice—to which I shall refer in a moment — but on the ground of the inefficiency that is encouraged.
  In the words of Mr. Frank Wilkinson,
  "Employers' attempts to escape from competitive pressure by attempting to reduce their wage costs can only be temporary and in the long run are counter-productive. The ability to protect profits by reducing wages allows producers to avoid any long-term solution of their lack of competitiveness by reinvesting in improved efficiency or developing new products. Moreover, the availability of lower wages as a strategy creates a particularly destructive form of competition which undermines product market stability, upon which favourable expectations depend. The consequent uncertainty militates against long term solutions."
  We get the bad employer paying rotten wages, not investing, and not training his staff. They undermine each other, lower the conditions of employment, and increase Britain's chronic unemployment problem and the problem of very low investment. The road that we are going on is to cut wages to such a degree that we shall be competing with Third world countries for jobs.
  I come now to social security. Two days ago, the Secretary of State for Social Services told us—and the Prime Minister repeated it—that in the review of the social security system they were deeply concerned about the needs of the working poor. Yet the Government are suggesting that it would be a really good idea to cut the wages of the working poor.
  Mr. Baldry: Who said that it would be a good idea to reduce the wages of the working poor?
  Ms. Short: The proposal to abolish wages councils is a proposal to cut the wages of some of the poorest workers, otherwise there would be no point in the Government making the proposal.
  The new family credit scheme, which is to replace the family income supplement, is a subsidy to bad employers paying low wages and lacking investment and training. If the Government want to subsidise British business, they should put money into firms which invest in training, higher technology and so on. Instead, they propose to spend more of the taxpayers' money on subsidising the worst employers in the land.
  Who are the people protected by wages councils whose conditions the Government are anxious to undermine? We are speaking of 2·75 million people, 11 per cent. of the work force. About two thirds of them work part time. Any threat to remove protection from part-time workers is a threat to the majority of those people. Four out of five of them are women and half of all women workers are protected by wages councils. This, therefore, represents an enormous threat to women.
  About 5 per cent. of people protected by wages councils are young. That may be a small percentage of the total, but it represents 20 per cent. of all young workers, and 90 per cent. of them work in retailing, catering and clothing. Large numbers of them are black workers — [Interruption.]Conservative Members may smirk and grin at the evidence, but prejudice is all that they are interested in.
  We are told by the Select Committee that 25 per cent. of families classified as poor have a low earner at their head, and that proportion rises to 40 per cent. when pensioner families are excluded. In other words, although 40 per cent. of poor families in Britain have a low paid worker at their head, the Government want to cut their wages.
  Would anyone dare argue that, because most women work, they really work only for pin money? I am sure that many Conservative Members think that. Would they dare say it openly? In one in four households the main breadwinner is a woman. These are households in which there are single women, sometimes with dependent relatives, and one in eight women look after an elderly dependant. Alternatively, a single parent is bringing up children on her own. One in 10 households is headed! by a single-parent mother. Women are the sole earners, because of the unemployment of their partners, in 400,000 families.
  In addition, women's earnings equal or exceed those of their male partners in one in seven of all married couples. If it were not for the earnings of married women, four times as many families would be living in poverty. The low wages that those women earn are absolutely crucial to enable them to look after their dependants and families.
  What, then, are the princely wages that the Government want to cut? We are told in the consultative document:
  "Most minimum full-time rates at March 1985 for adults ranged from £63 to £72."
  For young people we are told that 16-year-olds
  "get roughly 65 per cent. of the adult maximum"
  and that 17-year-olds
  "get 75 per cent. of the adult maximum."
  That represents £40 to £50 a week, yet Conservative
  Members have the cheek to suggest that that is too much
  for young people to earn. Among those who claim that is

  513
  the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who represents a neighbouring constituency but who, unfortunately, is not in her place.
  Since 1979, the lowest paid have taken major pay cuts. According to recently published Treasury figures, the highest paid men have enjoyed increases in real net pay 10 times as large as the wages enjoyed by the poorest, and the Government want to increase still further the wages of the better paid and, at the same time, to reduce the wages of the poorest.
  The Government have no case for suggesting that the abolition or weakening of wages councils will create jobs. The claim is false and there is no evidence for it. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but they cannot laugh away the evidence. What the Government propose will simply encourage bad employers and bad employment practices, low investment and a lack of training. This move is opposed by the public.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Ms. Short: I have taken too long already. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear." Tory Members may not care about the low paid or try to laugh off the evidence that my hon. Friends and I have been adducing, but I wonder whether they care about public opinion. A survey carried out by Mori in 1983 found that 66 per cent. of adults, including 62 per cent. of Conservative supporters, favoured a minimum wage for all workers. A recent opinion survey in the north-west conducted by Granada TV showed that 89 per cent. were in favour of retaining wages council protection.
  The Labour party will fight the Conservative party every inch of the way on this issue. We shall fight to retain the protection that low-paid workers have through wages councils and, when we take power, we shall ensure that they have improved protection.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so short speeches, please.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak, having found myself in a minority of one in dissenting from the Select Committee's report. I am disappointed that the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), is not in his place. Indeed, it is extraordinary that the Chairman is not present, especially as I am bound to comment on the way in which the report was put together.
  It was surprising that we had a report at all because at one stage it was thought that there would not be one. It was produced at remarkable speed, and that was probably why there were no amendments. At one stage I began to think that I was at a SOGAT meeting, considering the way in which the matter was progressing. I had had a difference of opinion with the Chairman on a previous occasion about GCHQ, and I found that I was getting the same sort of treatment this time. However, I managed to register my dissent before the report went to press.
  It was a pity that matters proceeded so quickly because three important items were missed. I am not sure whether
  514
  I am a believer in the conspiracy theory or the cock-up theory of history, but an important report from the Department of Employment arrived just hours after the Select Committee had had its last meeting. That report was on the clothing industry, and it showed, from an examination by me of the figures, 50,000 job losses. That is significant because the report itemised the big rundown in employment in that industry in the last 30 years. Jobs dropped from over 500,000 to about 250,000, and 50,000 of those were lost because of minimum wage legislation.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Did the report to which the hon. Gentleman is referring add that the wages in the industry had gone down by 20 per cent. over the same period?
  Mr. Thurnham: The principal point was that the wages of people starting in the industry, including youngsters, had been pitched at such a level that the industry could not train people to take the places of those who were leaving. In my constituency there is a shortage of skilled machinists because there is no incentive for employers to train people in such skills.
  The Select Committee missed another important document. That was a report by Dr. Stanley Seibert of Birmingham university which showed that as many as 230,000 job losses could be attributed to minimum wages legislation for youths.
  The Select Committee's report is disdainful about the figures for job losses and speaks at one point of "only 25,000 jobs" having been lost. Even 25,000 must be worth concern. After all, who would like to choose the 25,000 people involved? Even the Labour party's economist, Neuburger, referred to "only 8,000 job losses." Who on the Opposition Benches would care to name those 8,000 people?
  Mr. Prescott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in Britain has increased by 4,000 a week and that he has regularly voted for the policies that have brought that about?
  Mr. Thurnham: Unemployment in Britain has resulted from mistaken policies over many years — [Interruption.]—policies which have been followed by the Labour party and which are still advocated by Labour Members.
  The third item which, unfortunately, the Select Committee did not examine was the report by the Minister for Health and Social Security this week in which he makes interesting proposals for the reform of the welfare state, including the new family credit scheme. That scheme finally makes wages councils totally obsolete.
  Wages councils were introduced for three reasons— wages, hours, and unsanitary conditions. Unsanitary conditions have been dealt with by health and safety legislation; hours are no longer a problem because most of the people are part-time workers; and wages will now be taken care of by the family credit scheme proposals, which are excellent and which will cover what people want. People want a good take-home pay. They do not want legislation for a wage that employers cannot afford to pay from which massive deductions are made to cover the cost of payments to the unemployed which are caused by a ridiculous policy.
  What is the problem? We want to see the unemployed back at work. If 200,000 extra jobs are possible, what is

  515
  holding them up? I think that there is a conspiracy between the employed and the unemployed fed by fears fostered by the Opposition that there will be wage cuts. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that there would be wage cuts. That demonstrates her misunderstanding, because there will be no proposed wage cuts.
  Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend think that bodies such as the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which represents many employers, are part of the conspiracy?
  Mr. Thurnham: It is cosy to be able to get together with other employers and keep the current wages and to say that it does not matter about the unemployed because they do not come into the argument. That is a nice little restrictive practice.
  Mr. Jim Lester: It seems unfair that in every sector any employer can pay what he will and the family's wages are made up by the taxpayer. It is a question of employers who seek to pay as little as possible knowing that the wages of family workers will be made up. That does not apply to women workers or young workers. That is an unfair way of treating the taxpayer.
  Mr. Thurnham: If my hon. Friend looks at the booklets produced this week, he will see that what will happen is that take-home pay will increase with gross pay. If someone is paid more by his employer, he will have more to take home and he will not be interested in employers paying less. That should not apply in any case.
  The fear has existed since the measure was introduced in 1909 when the welfare state did not offer protection. The Under-Secretary of State is not here tonight because he is in Geneva — I hope doing a good job. In the middle of the night in our previous debate he said that if the wages councils were to be totally abolished
  "I have no doubt that some people would find themselves, at least temporarily, in circumstances which would be difficult to defend."—[Official Report, 26 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 416.] I have asked myself what he meant by that, and it crossed my mind that he might have been thinking of the wages councils' inspectors themselves. I accept that other employment would have to be found for them. However, perhaps my hon. Friend was thinking of people who might have their wages cut, but I do not understand that. In manufacturing industries wages are determined by the prices of the goods produced based upon world markets, and employers will compete among themselves to set the wages of people who can work profitably. There will not be any wage cuts for people who are occupied in profitable manufacturing industries.
  The service industries are not the same, because world prices do not apply, but employees still have the protection of their employment contract. After two years their wages cannot be cut. That would mean constructive dismissal, so I do not see how people's wages will suddenly be cut. We are talking not about cutting wages but about bringing in people lower down the ladder of earnings opportunities. I do not see why we should take away the bottom rungs. People on the bottom rungs will not affect the wages of those on the higher rungs who have the skills to command higher wages. Average wages might come down but there is no reason to believe that people working in the service industries should suddenly have their wages reduced. Obviously, by mutual agreement their wages could be reduced.
  516
  I find it most difficult to defend the circumstances of workers who have no mutual agreement and who lose their jobs through redundancies About 250,000 jobs in the clothing industries have been lost I find that difficult to defend.
  Hon Members talk about reform and say that youngsters set their own wages to keep a semblance of the wages councils What happens when someone is 21 years of age9 The hon Member for Truro (Mr Penhaligon) talked about redundancy at 21 That is ridiculous He suggests that the person of 21 should be told that Parliament has legislated that he must now have protection and that that means that he must be made redundant We talk about protection of wage levels, but not about the protection of the job itself.
  I am in favour of the protection of the unemployed against obsolete laws which can stop people starting work on the bottom rung of the ladder What is the point of being on the dole and without a job? Everybody should be able to start a job at whatever wages they can command I believe that the unskilled should be protected so that they can gain skills If someone is taken on at too high a wage, what incentive has he to gain extra skills? They must be given the incentive to improve their skills and the employer must find the means to train people.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: My hon Friend has been generous in giving way, unlike the hon Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) In the course of his deliberations in the Select Committee, did he come across the document produced by the TUC which states:
  "There must obviously be some truth in the proposition that all other things being equal, an individual employer will tend to employ more people if wages are lower and fewer people if wages are higher"?
  If my hon Friend has a copy of that document, perhaps he will give it to the hon Member for Ladywood.
  Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to my hon Friend— that is exactly it When talking about the national minimum wage, the Opposition do not seem to be able to make up their mind whether they want a national minimum wage The document "In Place of Strife' was put down by people who thought that they knew better That is probably the main reason for today's unemployment The Department of Employment was commissioned in 1969 to produce a document on a national minimum wage Paragraph 186 of that document states the effect on employment It states that the national minimum wage would increase the level of unemployment, and that the worst impact would fall on the less prosperous areas, including the development areas, Northern Ireland could be particularly affected That is why there was no minimum wage legislation in 1969 That is why the Opposition play around with the words and go no further.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to make points which were not included in the Select Committee report I am learning at every stage In future when I have differences with a Chairman I shall be able to include my points in the report I am all in favour of proposals which ensure that people have a proper take-home pay, but I am totally opposed to legislation which tells the employer what he should pay at such a level that the employer cannot pay it, and therefore cannot provide the job.
  8 39 pm
  Miss Joan Maynard (Sheffield, Brightside): Wages councils exist to protect those who cannot protect

  517
  themselves because they are not unionised to give them real strength. Because they are not strongly organised in their appropriate trades unions, they rely on the law and the inspectorate to enforce their wages. That is always a dicey business under capitalism. It is clear that a Tory Government can always pull away the prop, which is what this Tory Government propose to do in pursuit of their policy of driving down wages. They have created mass unemployment as a strong stick with which to beat the workers. They brought in the youth training scheme with low remuneration, and now propose to extend it.
  The introduction of Sunday trading is part of the strategy of driving down wages. It will mean more part-timers on lower rates, although God knows that part-time working on lower rates has already vastly increased. There is nothing wrong with part-time work, provided that the hourly rates and conditions are the same as those for full-time work. Indeed, there are many arguments in favour of part-time work. However, the truth is that part-timers are paid lower hourly rates and usually have worse conditions than full-time workers.
  Doing away with wages councils — which the Opposition will certainly resist — will not only drive wage rates which are already too low even lower, but will bring back sweated labour. Talk about Victorian values —they will be with us with a vengeance.
  The consultative document claims that wages councils' orders are difficult to understand. Of course, there are none so dense as those who do not want to understand. It is alleged that the difficulty in understanding the orders is one reason for underpayment. If people believe that, they will believe anything. There must be few employers who fail to obtain the grants to which they are entitled because they do not understand the regulations. The wages inspectorate continually report flagrant violations of wages board orders. Therefore, there is a case for more enforcement, not less. Few union members and no officials have difficulty in interpreting the orders.
  It is argued that more jobs would be created if wages were lower. I want to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Lady wood (Ms. Short). The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food analysed the impact of the minimum wage for farm workers, and the report concluded that increases in the value of the minimum wage
  "increased both the demand for, and the supply of, labour and hence employment."
  Ministers have found themselves arguing the case for abolition of wages councils against mounting opposition from public opinion, employers and some of their own Back Benchers as well as trade unions and the poverty lobby. The weight of evidence is that abolishing the councils or rendering them ineffective would have little or no effect on unemployment.
  In the absence of credible evidence beyond unsubstantiated anecdotes, the Department of Employment appears to have tried to cover Ministers' embarrassment with spurious and misleading claims for the likely effects of abolition. It is now time for the Government to admit that the king really has no clothes.
  Ministers have given no estimate of the increase in jobs likely to flow from the abolition of wages councils. When pressed to do so in relation to young people, they were unable to produce any figures or evidence. Paragraph 11
  518
  of the consultative paper claims that the wages set by the councils make it more difficult for those who wish to take up employment to do so. That is absurd because paragraph 7 notes that the minimum rates range from £63 to £72 a week, which respectively are 41 per cent. and 46 per cent. of national average earnings.
  The majority of employees covered by wages councils are women, and their average earnings hover around 53 per cent. of national average earnings. Therefore, women will suffer from any abolition of wages councils. The fact that 37 per cent. of workers covered by wages councils are paid the minimum only does not support the argument that rates are too high. Indeed, as has been made clear in many inspectorate reports, it suggests that underpayment is rife.
  My union, the Transport and General Workers Union, will continue to fight for low-paid workers, including farm workers, regardless of the fate of wages councils. Our principal interest is in the agricultural wages board. We are especially concerned about the consultative paper's attack on younger workers aged 18 or under. We appreciate that that could so easily be read into the agricultural wages board provisions.
  We see the attack on wages councils as a veiled attack on the wages board, and we shall certainly resist any such attack, as we resist the attack on wages councils. I make it clear that we shall also resist the so-called reforms, because I believe that they will be almost as bad as abolition.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: All that we have heard from Opposition Members so far has had an element of unreality. No one has yet used the words "employer" and "customer". They ignore the fact that it is the employer who pays the wages. If wages councils regularly award unrealistic rates, employers will not be able to pay them and firms will go out of business. The employer will become unemployed, as will the employee. I should have thought that Opposition Members would have been only too anxious to direct their minds to that.
  Everyone in this House is greatly concerned about unemployment. None profess to be more concerned than Opposition Members. It is therefore surprising that they do not understand that wages councils are a straitjacket on employer and employee alike.
  Reference has been made to youth unemployment. The effects of wages councils' demands in that area are so obvious that I am surprised that anyone feels able to stand up and justify them.
  I want to concentrate my few remarks on wages councils generally. The rigidity of some of their awards prevents the development of sensible wage structures and systems of remuneration tailored to the needs of industry and business. Wages councils concern themselves not only with pay—if they did, perhaps there might be a little more justification for them—but with hours of work, holidays, part-time working, overtime wage rates and a host of things that sensible employers and employees in other businesses and industries not covered by wages councils manage to settle by themselves.
  In today's highly competitive world, businesses will fail unless they can make sensible and realistic forward planning forecasts. Few businesses can organise themselves and settle the difference between a profit and a loss without knowing precisely what their overheads will be during the next 12 months.

  519
  The biggest question mark against any employer's forecast is labour costs. It is a crucial factor. The fact that that should be decided by other people, many of whom have no direct business experience whatever, and without regard to whether that business will continue profitably, is tying the business man's hands behind his back. Nor is it any more satisfactory for the person who is employed. An able worker with years of seniority and experience finds his wage differentials annually eroded as a result of these awards, particularly to young workers, to the point where seniority and responsibility are counted as of little worth and there is no incentive left to achieve either.
  It is essential that there should be economic recovery. That could be achieved by more flexible hours and by encouraging efficient, low cost businesses which can compete with foreign competition. It is a truism that the new small businesses of today will be the big businesses of tomorrow. If their growth is stunted at this stage, we shall do no service to employment prospects.
  Since the recession, more and more small business employers have had to pay themselves less and less in order to satisfy the ever increasing and ever more unrealistic requirements of the wages councils. The uncertainty of those awards—the fact that they can be backdated — is a terrifying prospect for the small employer who has limited capital. These requirements are a very large factor for an employer in deciding whether he can afford to take on extra staff. In practice, each new wages council award has meant a cut in the hours that an employee may work. The corollary is an increase in the hours that the employer has to work if he wishes to stay in business. When the Opposition hear of businesses failing, they are the first to say that it is the Prime Minister's policies that are creating unemployment. They never consider that it might be the result of the unfeeling, appalling bureaucracy which is interfering with the day-to-day operations of businesses which are trying to do their best.
  We are still one of the least efficient industrial nations. We still pay more but produce less than most of our competitors. The essential problem of keeping costs down in order to remain in business does not concern the wages councils and the academics who serve on them. The fringe benefits that they award become more and more unreasonable every year — for example, increased holiday allowances for workers who may work for only two days a week or who may even work from home.
  The contact with reality of many who serve on wages councils is tenuous. Wages councils were formed to protect those who work in small enterprises where at one time union organisation was impracticable. In industries where there are unions a settlement is reached between management and union, but that does not happen in industries which are covered by wages councils.
  Wages councils are answerable to nobody — not to employers, to employees, or to this House. Working in their ivory towers, the only jobs that they protect are their own. If they succeed in raising wage levels beyond what the market will bear, employers will be unable to continue profitably in business. Wages councils will harm the ability of employers to provide better working conditions and fringe benefits. They are costly and expensive items in the day-to-day business of any employer.
  In any group of people there are variations in ability, self-confidence, application and usefulness to the employer. If the cost of offering work constantly goes up,
  520
  the less able and useful will suffer. Those who are highly skilled will get the jobs. If wages councils continue in existence, the less able will be permanently barred from having the chance of a job. The abolition of wages councils would not entirely solve our unemployment problem, but would help to solve it. It would bring greater flexibility to the labour market. The wages councils would cease to do a job which ought to be done by the social services.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The abolition of the wages councils would discriminate against women, because a high proportion of women are covered by them. Their abolition would also increase the amount of racial discrimination against the black community. There is also a regional dimension to this problem. The economies of Northern England, Wales and Scotland are already low-wage economies. If it were true that low wages created jobs, the boom areas would be the low-wage economy areas, but that is not the case. The low-wage economy areas are also the high unemployment black spots. Far from employment being created by low wages, unemployment is to be found alongside stagnant wages levels and low productivity.
  The Government have not produced figures that show the number of workers who are covered by wages councils in Wales. When I asked the Secretary of State about the number of jobs that would be created by the abolition of the wages councils, he was unable to produce any figures. Eight thousand jobs in Wales could be created over five years. This would be one twelfth of the jobs lost in Wales since 1979. As a proportion, this would produce perhaps 500 jobs in Wales.
  The Government's monetarist policies are creating unemployment. The decision to abolish the wages councils is a product of supply side fanaticism, but it is the fall in the aggregate demand in the economy caused by monetarism which is the cause of unemployment. The supply siders believe that the poor and the unemployed cause unemployment by pricing themselves out of jobs and that if the wages councils are abolished wages will be cut and more jobs created. This fantasy is deliberately nurtured by the Government to obscure their intentions.
  When we debate the substantive legislation, I hope that this debate will herald a major campaign throughout Britain, particularly in the industrial sectors which already suffer from depressed wage levels and in the regions where for years there have been low-wage, depressed economies. We must mount an effective campaign against these sexist, racist, anti-working class proposals.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: I rise to speak in support of wages councils, but perhaps in company that I did not anticipate. I shall still speak in favour of them, but not with the same fervour or with the same views as Opposition Members. The case that could be made in support of them has been overshadowed by strong political rhetoric and by claims that cannot be justified.
  At present there are 26 wages councils, which represent about 2·75 million people. However, seven of them represent as many as 2,600,000 people. Thus there are two different types of wages council. A small group of them represent the majority, and many smaller wages councils represent a wide range of other employees. That is why

  521
  there is a need for reform. Hon. Members should bear in mind that two thirds of the units involved employ fewer than 10 people. Consequently, wages councils, which are very rigid and have many rules, do not give many of the small employers any opportunity to understand their real purpose. I believe that wages councils should be restricted to looking at the basic wages of adult employees and some of their basic conditions.
  However, it is too easy to say that all young people have priced themselves out of work. In general, they have not done so. At present, wages councils set the adult rate. Many of the industries that are covered employ people who need comparatively little training before they can achieve a reasonable rate of work. That level is rightly, in some cases, set at 18 or 19 years of age, and that is only sensible.
  However, industries gradually change. Demand changes, and consequently there are manufacturing and technological changes which may mean that wages councils have to be more flexible in their approach. However, the argument that young people price themselves out of jobs is no more true than the argument that low wages automatically lead to greater benefits, more jobs. It is true that higher wage rates can price people out of work, but the converse is not automatically true. In some areas, exploitation already exists. Inspectors have already reported on cases of people being underpaid. Sometimes that is accidental, but sometimes it is not. If we remove all regulation, that exploitation will increase —perhaps not greatly but sufficiently.
  Many of the 2·75 million people covered by wages councils are already subject to various collective bargaining arrangements within their industries. Thus, fewer than 2·75 million people are genuinely dependent on the results achieved by wages councils. I do not think we can risk removing all such regulation in anticipation of the fact that more competition at the bottom will lead to genuine benefits. When young people have achieved a certain level, they should be paid the rate for the job, but until then they cannot expect anywhere near the full rate. It is productivity that matters. The employer must see a return, because otherwise he will ask himself whether it is worth employing a person at a certain rate. If an employer is not obtaining £62 worth of work, it is not economical for him to pay that rate.
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman has made several valuable points, but is there not a danger in trying to explain all pay levels by productivity levels? Agriculture is a high productivity industry, but the wage rates are low.
  Mr. Stevens: I accept that one cannot pursue that argument to its end. However, the difference between employing and not employing people must depend to some extent on how much work is done. For example, in the case of certain shop jobs, there must be a time when people are not fully employed as otherwise they could not be brought in to deal with big queues.
  I support wages councils. I hope that they will not be abolished and that we shall continue to give them a valuable role to play. However, there is a tremendous need for them to be reformed. Much of the bureaucracy that goes with them is not acceptable to many small businesses. The value of wages councils is not recognised, so they are not used and therefore they cannot help the people whom
  522
  they are there to protect. The most worthwile thing that we do is reform the councils, streamline them, make them more efficient and reduce the bureaucracy while keeping the basic regulations of protection for the ordinary working people.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: This debate arises out of what was described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a Budget for jobs. In reality, the purpose of the measure, announced in that Budget, of which the abolition, or changing the structure, of wages councils is but one, was to provide a sweatshop Budget, designed to produce low wages. That is in line with the Tory Government's philosophy. Over the past six years, they have used mass unemployment in an attempt to cower the trade union movement, to limit wage rises and to reduce the direct and indirect wages paid to working people.
  The employers and the industrialists whom the Tory Government represent, having failed to invest in new machinery in the past 30 years, and having realised that they have lost world markets and are now losing their share of the domestic markets whether in fridges, vehicles, televisions, radios or textiles, are cutting the share of wealth that goes to working people to restore or enhance their profit levels. They are cutting direct wages or, through the Government, cutting the social wages of education, housing and other social services. The threat is now extended to the wages councils.
  The wages councils cover almost 3 million workers in shops, hairdressing, clothing, catering and hotels. Significantly, despite what Tory Members have said, the wages councils do not cover manufacturing or the export industry. Therefore, the Tory Government's logic—that cutting wages for those covered by wages councils will help the British capitalist economy—is spurious. It will only increase the number of workers who have to survive on poverty wages.
  That 3 million is part of an army of 8·5 million workers living on or below the poverty line. One third of the workforce is living on a financial tightrope and the abolition of the wage councils would shred it. We are talking about wages of £60 or £70 a week. How can Tory Members understand what it is like to live on such a wage when for many of them it is the price of a week's gin and tonics in the Bar or Banqueting Rooms?
  The Tories have argued in this debate and elsewhere that the wages councils price workers out of jobs. We have had that tonight from a Member of Parliament who has seven jobs. Where is his evidence? In the past 10 years, wages council rates as a percentage of average wages have fallen from 73 per cent. to 65 per cent., but unemployment has rocketed. Tory Ministers and the Secretary of State have argued that YTS youngsters on £26 a week, hairdressers on £45 a week, check-out lasses and lads on £69 a week are getting too much.
  If high wage increases automatically lead to a destruction of jobs, why is there no condemnation from the Tory party of the chairman of ICI, who took a 63 per cent. increase in his wages last year? The Financial Times commented that, compared with some company chairmen, he is a pauper. He is on only £171,000 a year—£3,300 a week. Why is there no condemnation for the chairman of the British Oxygen Company, on £13,000 a week for selling fresh air? Why is there no condemnation of Cabinet

  523
  Ministers, who gave themselves a 9.4 per cent. increase last year or of company directors with an 11 per cent. increase?
  Under the Tory Government, the number of millionaires has doubled to over 8,000. Over 1 million people now earn over £20,000 a year. How many jobs of ordinary working people have been destroyed by those high salaries? According to the register of Members' interests, many Tory Members cannot survive on the salary for an MP. They have to have five, 10 or 15 jobs. The argument that wages of £60 or £70 per week authorised by wages councils destroy jobs is obviously rubbish in the light of what some Tory Members are getting. The argument of the Tories could be summed up by saying that the poor are not yet poor enough for unemployment to fall and the rich are not yet rich enough for investment in industry to take place.
  Mr. Thurnham rose—
  Mr. Nellist: Because of the time, I am not giving way.
  We on these Benches oppose the abolition of wages councils because the Labour party is against low pay. I have a private Member's Bill before the House which expresses TUC and Labour party policy. I hope that it will be implemented speedily by the next Labour Government to provide a national minimum wage for £ 115 per week for all workers for a maximum 35 hour week; that wage would start at the age of 18. There should be a pro rata wage for part-timers and increases should be linked to inflation. For 16-year-olds the rate should be 75 per cent. of the adult rate and for 17-year-olds it should be 85 per cent. For those in Government training schemes, no one should receive less than the £55 per week that a trade union member would get.
  We are arguing not just against the abolition of wages councils but in favour of a campaign by the trade union movement to get the 3 million workers covered by wages councils into trade union membership so that we may fight for the enhancement of their conditions.
  Wages councils are by no means perfect. In 1983 the wages council inspectors visited 23,000 work places. In 9,000 cases employees were being illegally underpaid, but there were only seven prosecutions. In 1984 there were two prosecutions. We have in government the so-called party of law and order, the Tory party. When the Tory Government see evidence of massive avoidance of the law in regard to the payment of wages, do they strengthen the wages inspectorate? No; they cut its number by one third. Do they give the inspectors more tools to do their job? No; they restrict their activities by reducing the miles they are allowed to travel. They change the law to allow their friends off the hook.
  If wages councils were to be abolished, it would be a direct attack on women and young workers. Four fifths of all workers covered by wages councils are women, and one in five of all young workers are covered. The Secretary of State said that wages councils price young people out of jobs. Even the consultative document on which the debate arises says:
  "there is a growing body of evidence that the employment prospects of young people are adversely affected by the level of their pay relative to adults."
  What evidence exists for that? Youth wages have fallen sharply over the last six years. Relative to adult rates,
  524
  wages for boys are 8 per cent. lower and for girls 12 per cent. lower than they were five years ago. Yet youth unemployment has trebled.
  What sort of conditions are the young people working in? Just under two weeks ago I had an article in a magazine called "Just 17". As a result of that article over 80 girls aged 16 to 20 have written to tell me about their employers.[Interruption.]That seems to provoke laughter on the Tory Benches. I heard about a 19-year-old in the Black Country who is working for a stockbroker who no doubt has many friends on the Tory Benches. She is working from 9 am to 5·15 pm. During the three months she was training she received £30 per week. Now she has been taken on permanently at £32·50 per week.
  I heard from another young girl who was lured to Devon to work in a shop by a bloke who promised her a flat and wages of £50 per week plus commission. Now she finds that she is working seven days a week from 10 in the morning until 9 at night. For all those hours she gets. £10 per week plus her board. She is to get commission only if the shop takes over £400 per week, but while she has been there the takings have never been more than £200 per week. I heard from another young girl in Rhyl in Clwyd who is working alongside someone who receives £78·50 per week as a typist; she is on YTS and is getting £26·50 for doing the same job.
  Have those wage rates created massive increases in new jobs for young people, as the Tories have said tonight and in previous arguments? Earlier today in business questions, I gave some figures showing the true picture of youth unemployment now. Fourty-six per cent. of all England's careers offices have 10 or fewer vacancies for this year's school leavers. Ninety-four per cent. of Scottish careers offices and 95 per cent. of Welsh careers offices have 10 or fewer vacancies. Five hundred and seventeen thousand people will leave school this summer. Fifty-one careers offices do not have a single job available. Another 36 have only one job. Those 517,000 school leavers are chasing 12,355 vacancies—42 kids to every vacancy. In England the figure is 37 to one, in Wales it is 129 to one and in Scotland it is 144 to one.
  In only two places in Wales, Cardiff and Shotton, are there more than 10 jobs for the school leavers. Some 40 offices in Wales have fewer than 10 vacancies. In only five places in Scotland are there more than 10 jobs for school leavers. The statistics go on and on.
  Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in Brecon and Radnor, where an important election is due to take place, young people are doing very well because there are 10 vacancies at their centre?
  Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In Wales, Brecon is one of the four offices with 10 or more vacancies. It just gets itself into double figures for the hundreds, if not thousands, of school leavers chasing those vacancies.
  The British capitalist economy under this Tory Government is in tatters. Some 5 million people are denied the right to a job. Some 6 million live in damp houses and 8.5 million live on poverty wages. The Government come forward with the idea of reducing the wages of people on £60 or £70 a week, claiming that there is not enough money in the economy to pay decent wage rates. Under this Government, over £50,000 million has left this country in the past four or five years and gone to the real

  525
  low-wage economies of South Africa, Korea, Brazil and Argentina, where the wage rates are kept low at the barrel of a gun often of a military police dictatorship. That is what is at the back of the minds of some Tory Members. They want to emulate the wage rates and conditions in Singapore, Bangkok or Bangladesh to compete with the textile manufacturers of those far eastern countries, affecting the young workers and women in those industries in this country.
  We are against the abolition of wages councils. We are even more interested in getting rid of this Tory Government and giving every worker a more decent week's wage for his job than he receives now.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: Few hon. Members can have a constituency with more workers who are under the auspices of wages councils than mine. In Bournemouth, many workers are in the leisure, hotel, catering and retail industries. In fact, they are the backbone of employment in that town. Since I was elected I have been inundated with complaints about wages councils, and nearly all the employers in my constituency would like to see them abolished.
  Mr. Evans: What about the employees?
  Mr. Butterfill: It was not unnatural that I approached the matter with that view. There is no doubt that if we were to abolish wages councils there would be a considerable improvement in employment. Indeed, all the academic studies that I have seen show that to be the case.
  Mr. Evans: Which ones?
  Mr. Butterfill: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman which ones. The study giving the lowest figure comes from Henry Neuburger, who I believe is employed by the Labour party. In the Low Pay Unit report of 1984 he suggested that here would be 8,000 new jobs if the wages councils were abolished. The highest figure that I have seen is in the study by Dr. Stanley Siebert who suggested in 1985 that there would be 230,000 more jobs. A study by the Department of Employment last month suggested that there would be 50,000 more jobs. I do not know which of those figures is right.
  Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Butterfill: No, I do not have time to give way.
  Whichever figure is correct, surely those jobs are worth having. There has been an enormous volume of representation to the Government and also to me because I have taken a particular interest in this as secretary of my party's sub-committee on tourism. Many employers, the Institute of Directors, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses and the CBI have all made representations urging us to proceed with abolition. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said that the CBI did not favour abolition, but its parliamentary brief for this debate states in capital letters:
  "Each wages council should be abolished unless employers make a substantial case for its continuation."
  Mr. Evans: What about employees?
  Mr. Butterfill: Many other employers have suggested reform rather than abolition, including the Institute of Personnel Management, ACAS and the National Chamber
  526
  of Trade. The Auld committee, too, recommended reform rather than abolition. Given the differing views, the Government are right to say that there should be a considerable period of consultation before any decision is made.
  If wages councils are retained, there must be substantial reforms.
  Mr. Evans: To strengthen them.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Member for Truro referred to the ridiculous position of young workers. Young and inexperienced people are automatically paid the same as more experienced workers. That is not the situation in Holland, Denmark or Germany. Protection for young workers should be either abolished or subject to graduated stages up to the age of, say, 23 as in Holland.
  I am also concerned about the rules for Sunday working. If, as it seems, we are to proceed with Sunday trading there will be considerable problems, as there are already in Scotland. It is ludicrous to insist on payment at double time for Sunday working. If there is any differential at all, it should not be more than time and a half for Sunday working.
  There is also considerable concern about the independent members of the councils. That, too, must be urgently considered if reform is to take place.
  The scope of the wages councils should be strictly limited to minimum wage levels. Very small firms with, say, fewer than five members should be excluded. Larger firms with existing trade union agreements or satisfactory collective bargaining agreements of other kinds should be allowed to come out of wages councils because they are adequately protected already.
  To do all that, it may be necessary to repudiate ILO convention No. 26. If that is necessary, the Government should do so.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and others have said, two options were placed before us in the Government's consultative document. They are that we should abolish the wages councils, as stated in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, or that we should reform them. No hon. Member who believes that wages councils have an important part to play, as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends do, would deny that progressive action for reform would be welcome. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), in a debate on 15 February 1984, said, on behalf of the Labour party, that wages councils should be changed in some respects.
  There are many ways in which the effect of the wages councils could be strengthened, and perhaps some of the worst aspects of what they do to small businesses could be limited. Assistance could be channelled more effectively towards the most vulnerable. The observance of statutory minimum rates could be better policed. We could encourage more dialogue between both sides who sit on the councils, and it may be essential to lessen the burdens placed on small firms by the wages councils. For instance, the time lag between giving decisions and their being implemented could be shortened.
  If the Government produced a genuine package of reforms aimed at some or all of those objectives, we would have to consider them constructively. But the central issue

  527
  is either abolition or emasculation in the guise of reform. Wages councils are not necessarily the best way to protect the low-paid, but there is no doubt about the need for some mechanism for such protection. At present, the wages councils are all that we have.
  The abolition of wages councils would be an act of pure ideology unsupported by the facts now available to us. We have heard arguments from the Secretary of State and from Conservative Members that their abolition or emasculation would increase employment. But where is the evidence for that? The largest industry covered by a wages council— the clothing industry — together with the retailing and catering industries, represent 90·3 per cent. of all employees who are protected by wages councils. Between 1950 and the late 1970s, wages in the clothing industry decreased by 20 per cent. compared with average wages, and at the same time employment was halved. There is no evidence that a reduction in wages causes increased employment. In the other direction, I note that a 1982 report from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated that increases in average earnings appeared in that industry
  "to have increased both demand for and supply of labour, hence employment."
  The Department of Employment's in-house employment market research unit has produced evidence that points in the other direction, but, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, the Low Pay Unit has completely discredited that research. It employed many unscientific statistics for its conclusions, and even included the footwear industry, which is not covered by a wages council. Many believe that that research was slanted to support some previously chosen prejudices.
  The matter is brought into clear relief by the Government, whose senior members seem completely unconvinced of the fact that the abolition of the wages councils will have no effect on employment. One need look no further than the speech made in April 1984 by the chairman of the Conservative party. He said:
  "It is not possible to estimate in any precise way how employment might be affected if wages councils were abolished." — [Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 255.]
  There we have it. There is the admission that the Government at the most senior level are not convinced that the abolition of the wages councils would have any effect on employment. Clearly revealed in that statement is the idea that this has been done for ideological purposes.
  If the wages councils go, we shall see the end of organisations which provide safeguards for 2·7 million people. In no sense can it be said that they provide high wages. In some areas—for example, hairdressing—the rates are as low as £1·18 per hour. Such wages are set at 25 per cent. of average earnings. Can it really be countenanced that those wages should be allowed to fall even lower? Is it really proposed that, with benefit to the economy and without exploitation of the people concerned, such wages should fall lower than that level?
  If one extrapolates the 1983 checking figures, it can be seen that there may be as many as 170,000 people who are underpaid. It will also be discovered from the 1983 survey that the amounts of underpayment are not insignificant. Indeed, it appears that on average each employee was underpaid by about £118.
  We would lose a structure which all too inadequately limits exploitation. Do the Government say that there is no wage exploitation? Surely they cannot be so blind. If
  528
  wages councils are abolished, how will they safeguard those who are vulnerable to low wage exploitation, or do they intend that there should be no such safeguards— that they do not intend to safeguard the wages of those earning as little as £1·18 an hour? As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro said, do they intend to abandon a safeguard which as a civilised society we have accepted for nigh on 80 years? Is that what they mean by returning to Victorian values and Victorian practices?
  There is no doubt that wages councils perform an important function. They are part of a civilised society. They safeguard the wages of those who are vulnerable to wage exploitation. They provide a mechanism which protects employers as well as employees from unfair competition based on wage undercutting. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons why many employers welcome their existence. They provide a framework within which orderly industrial relations and a voluntary collective bargaining system can operate.
  There is no evidence that the abolition or the emasculation of wages councils would produce anything but the most insignificant increase in employment. Is the questionable gaining of that worth so much sacrifice? The answer must be, "No". If the Government go for such substantial reform as will further weaken the powers and effectiveness of the wages councils, we shall see the triumph of prejudice over the facts, the triumph of dogma over compassion and the triumph of ideology over common sense and common humanity. Let the Government now announce that they do not intend either the abolition or the emasculation of the wages councils. If they fail to do so, let those Conservative Members who believe that wages councils have a part to play—I know that there are some—vote for our motion tonight.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: We have had a debate in which the arguments for and against wages councils have been wide ranging, and the strong feelings on both sides of the House about this issue have been put on the record. However, one voice has been notable by its absence. When I picked up the Daily Telegraph this morning—which I do not normally do with any great enthusiasm—I was pleased to find that the Conservative Centre Forward group had chosen its four priority issues which it intends to press in the House over the coming months. They are unemployment, the reform of the welfare state, the financing and organisation of local government, and the future of wages councils. The House will confirm that, despite that announcement, not one voice from that group has defended wages councils today.
  Another group, which might have been associated with the Centre Forward group, has also been missing today —the majority of those who supported the Employment Select Committee's report which recommended that wages councils should be supported. Three of the four members of that Committee who voted for the report are Conservatives. Unfortunately, we have had no speech supporting the Committee's report from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) or the hon. Member for Bat)ey and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). We shall be interested to see whether they support their views later today.
  Mr. Butterfill rose—
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: It is most regrettable that those voices have been absent from the debate.
  The Government have brought wages councils into the firing line because of their desire to divert attention away from the failure of their other policies on unemployment. They have tried to give the impression that abolition of wages councils will in some way which has not been proved today or elsewhere overcome unemployment. Indeed, they have tried to give the impression that the very existence of wages councils is a major reason for high unemployment. One need only consider the activities covered by wages councils to see what palpable nonsense that is.
  Two thirds of employees covered by wages councils work part-time and four fifths of them are female. The majority are covered by just six wages councils concerned with hairdressing, hotels, restaurants and the retail trades. The Secretary of State and his colleagues constantly tell us they are areas of expanding employment and, in many cases, increased efficiency and considerable success. Indeed, all the forecasts suggest that they will continue to prosper. One can hardly suggest that restaurants and retail trades are not expanding or that they are being restrained by wages councils. We have only to consider the extension of chains such as McDonalds, ASDA and Sainsburys to see that activity is not restrained by wages councils.
  It is unfortunate that, in the Budget, the Government tried to parade wages councils as one of the causes of high unemployment and suggested that their abolition would reduce unemployment. We have had a useful discussion about the reform of wages councils. Some useful reforms on simplification and on the pay structure laid down by the wages councils could be introduced. We accept that, but unfortunately the debate has not predominantly been about that. The Select Committee members examined this aspect as dispassionately as we would expect. There is no clear evidence to support the employment claims put forward by those who advocate abolition.
  Various pieces of evidence have been bandied about. For every piece of evidence that demonstrates that employment increases if wages councils are abolished, there is another to show the opposite.
  Mr. Evans: Anecdotes.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: Much of that evidence is anecdotal. The report on clothing also dealt with the footwear industry, which is not covered by a wages council. Conservative Members should refer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who, for many years, has argued for the textile industry as vociferously as anyone. The wages councils have not been the cause of the problems in the clothing industry. Management, lack of investment, poor marketing, design and product development and international trade have affected the industry. The Labour Government and the present Government have been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House for not acting more stringently to protect our home industry from unfair imports. Those factors have given rise to the loss of employment in the clothing industry much more than the marginal effect of wages councils.
  Hon. Members cannot rest upon that case to claim that wages councils should be abolished. No case has been proved during this debate or in evidence to the Select Committee showing that there is an employment case for
  530
  abolishing the wages councils. The overwhelming case for the retention of the wages councils is based on the argument for equity and for protecting the most vulnerable people within our society.
  What do the Government seek to do in relation to pay? In recent years, one of the divides between the two sides of the House — all Opposition parties and the Government — has concerned pay and productivity. Members on the Government Benches seem hell-bent on bringing about a low-pay, low-productivity economy, whereas Members on the Labour and alliance Benches want a high-pay, high-productivity economy, which they know is the only solution to our long-term problems and the only hope of beating overseas competition and having low unemployment in the future. The two major industrial countries that have succeeded so much where we have failed are Germany and Japan. In Japan especially pay and productivity have been rapidly increasing. The Japanese have succeeded in beating the competition and, therefore, in keeping unemployment low.
  Mr. Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: I cannot give way, because my time is limited.
  Instead of aiming for the type of economy that exists in Germany and Japan, the Government seem hell-bent on going for a low-pay economy and competing with economies that have low technology, low skill and low education bases. I am sure that the Opposition agree that that is not the direction in which we should move.
  The Government are at their weakest in their response to the case for protecting the most vulnerable people— workers who are earning very low rates of pay, between £65 and £72 a week. In some trades such as hairdressing, wages are even lower than that. Those are not the sort of people who are causing problems to the British economy. They are the sort of people who need the protection of this House to ensure that their standards of living are not curtailed even further.
  As hon. Members on both sides have said, it is interesting that the wages councils make a contribution to industrial relations. If there is not a collective bargaining system in an industry, the wages councils system provides a framework for an orderly determination of wages and conditions that would otherwise not exist. As the Select Committee pointed out, if the wages councils were abolished, that orderliness would go, and the consequent competition, wage cutting, and worsening in the conditions of workers would be very damaging to industry as a whole and not only to the workers.
  Therefore, there is an overwhelming case for retaining the wages councils, albeit with some of the reforms to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) referred when he opened the debate. I hope that, despite the lack of speeches from those Conservative Members who believe that the wages councils should be retained, the Secretary of State will be able to tell the House that, in taking note of the weight of arguments in the debate, he is prepared to give us an early decision that the wages councils will be maintained.
  I believe that the Government's policy towards the wages councils is a pathetic and dishonest attempt to divert attention from the failure of their other policies. Today's high unemployment is caused not by the levels of wages

  531
  but by the lack of demand within the economy. We made that quite clear to the Government in the Budget debates and in other economic debates in this House.
  More and more people are coming to realise that the only way in which we shall be able to cut unemployment is not by tinkering around with bodies such as the wages councils, or with the rates of pay of the lowest paid members of our community, but by changing the Government's economic strategy.
  Ministers must not suggest that by dealing with the so-called problem of wages councils they will be able significantly to reduce unemployment from 3¼ million. It has been suggested that the maximum number of people who could be employed as a result of the abolition of the wages councils would be 25,000. That would hardly make any impact on the problem of unemployment, even if that figure could be attained. There is conflicting evidence on that figure in the Select Committee report, and 25,000 is the highest figure that I have seen. It is much more realistic to suggest that, if all the wages councils were abolished, it might result in creating about 8,000 jobs. That has been the number of jobs lost month by month as a result of the Government's economic policies. Why are we wasting all this time, effort and money in investigating the future of the wages councils when the number of jobs that might be created, if the councils were abolished, is so small and puny and would make so little impact on unemployment?
  What we are witnessing is a charade in an attempt to divert attention from the high level of unemployment and its true cause—the Government's economic policies. If the Secretary of State were to announce tonight a change in the Government's policy towards the wages councils, he would get much more support than he is likely to get in the Lobbies.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Tom King: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the points that have been made in this short debate.
  I said in my opening remarks that I appreciated the House having an opportunity to discuss this subject because the consultation period had just ended in terms of the formal public consultation. I said that we had received 667 responses from a range of organisations and individuals. I am, therefore, grateful for the opportunity that has been afforded for hon. Members to make their contributions as well.
  Mr. Foot rose—
  Mr. King: I think that I can answer the right hon. Gentleman, before he has even asked his question, by saying no.
  Mr. Foot: I intended to ask—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two right hon. Gentlemen on their feet at the same time. Is the Minister giving way?
  Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question that I asked earlier? Are there any objections or support for his view in the representations that he has received?
  Mr. King: The consultation paper suggested two alternatives, abolition or reform, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman, as I said in my opening remarks, that there was support for both possibilities.
  532
  It would be wrong of me not to say that I have received from some employers' bodies strong arguments for the retention of wages councils. Those bodies have included the Federation of Merchant Tailors, and I feel that I should put that on the record early in my contribution.
  The House will have noticed the vigour with which the debate has been conducted and I am under no illusions about the strength of feeling that exists in quarters of the House on this matter. There is a real difference of view. There are those who hold strong views about the present pattern of wages councils, covering an erratic series of shops in the high street. Earlier, I challenged any hon. Member to walk with me down a high street and be able to speak with certainty about which shops were and were not covered by the existing wages councils provisions. That point was clearly recognised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon).
  If I were to take a theme that has carried certain common ground across the Chamber, it would be that there is, without doubt, room for action. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), part of whose speech I missed, referred to the case for sensible reform. The case for reform undoubtedly exists, and we start from that common ground.
  I cannot say that I am absolutely sure about the position of certain Labour Members, least of all those on the Labour Front Bench, who would oppose almost any change in any situation, no matter how obvious the case for it. In this situation, however, we have established a case at least for reform, and the argument that we now face is whether it should be reform or abolition.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is not at present in her place. She referred to a leaked document and she seemed to chase every story on the subject. She referred to the obvious fact that there had been a leaked document on the pressures from senior civil servants unhappy with the policy. That was an unfortunate phrase for her to use. She is in a▪ position to know—because the person concerned is with an organisation with which she is connected—that a document has been removed from my Department.
  Sadly, it meant the end of the career of a young junior civil servant because he leaked the document of a senior civil servant, in this case the permanent secretary. I say that only in sorrow, and Opposition Members who gloat with great delight about leaked documents must have regard—[Interruption.] This applies particularly to the Labour Member who has aspirations to be in government. He should not gloat too much about the readiness of civil servants to hand out Government documents. If that hon. Member were in a different situation he might not think that to be in the best interests of Government organisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) was a member of the Select Committee and issued a minority report. He made his arguments clear to the House. The hon. Member for Ladywood promised that her party would fight the proposal all the way. but she cannot bear to be here for the closing speeches. I am sure that there is a reasonable explanation for her absence. I see that she has returned. She makes a late return to the battlefield and we are delighted to welcome her back. Not a single Labour Member of the Select Committee took part in the debate tonight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North␣East emphasised the heart of the issue — employment and jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West

  533
  (Mr. Butterfill) made it clear that even the Leader of the Opposition's advisers accepted that extra jobs will result. One can argue about how many extra jobs. That is important, but the key question is about the level of protection—if that protection is necessary for those in work—and about what impact it will have on preventing those out of work from having the chance of a job. Those issues are at the heart of the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East also raised another matter which I am sure that the House will consider further. He asked what was the relevance of such a form of wage protection in a society in which there might be family credit or some other form of family income support.
  I sought earlier to explain the different criteria against which the original trade boards were established and the different categories involved — the long hours and the insanitary nature of the working conditions. They are two of the three criteria on which the trade boards and the wages councils were established. The criteria are dealt with in different legislation and protected in different ways.
  I have listened to most of the debate. I shall study all the contributions. After the extensive consultation we shall reach decisions, not because of the vote tonight, but by giving serious consideration to representations. I do not intend to dismiss with contempt, as the motion invites, the 667 responses. They deserve serious consideration.
  The Government's amendment makes clear that those representations, with those from hon. Members, from the Select Committee and from the minority report by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, will be seriously considered. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 194.

  Division No. 231]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Alton, David

  Clarke, Thomas

  Anderson, Donald

  Clay, Robert

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Coleman, Donald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Barnett, Guy

  Conlan, Bernard

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Beith, A. J.

  Corbett, Robin

  Bell, Stuart

  Cowans, Harry

  Benn, Tony

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

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

  Craigen, J. M.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blair, Anthony

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Boyes, Roland

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle—u—Tyne E)

  Dormand, Jack

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dubs, Alfred

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Eadie, Alex

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

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

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fatchett, Derek

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Faulds, Andrew

  534

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Forrester, John

  Nellist, David

  Foster, Derek

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foulkes, George

  O'Brien, William

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Freud, Clement

  Patchett, Terry

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Penhaligon, David

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Pike, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Prescott, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Randall, Stuart

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Haynes, Frank

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Robertson, George

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Home Robertson, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Howells, Geraint

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hume, John

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Snape, Peter

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Soley, Clive

  John, Brynmor

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Strang, Gavin

  Kilroy—Silk, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  Lamond, James

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Tinn, James

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Torney, Tom

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Wareing, Robert

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Weetch, Ken

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Welsh, Michael

  McKelvey, William

  Wigley, Dafydd

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Wilson, Gordon

  Madden, Max

  Woodall, Alec

  Marek, Dr John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Martin, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maxton, John

  Mr. John Cartwright and

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.

  Meacher, Michael

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butcher, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Tom

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chope, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Benyon, William

  Colvin, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Conway, Derek

  Biggs—Davison, Sir John

  Coombs, Simon

  Blackburn, John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Crouch, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dickens, Geoffrey

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

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Douglas—Hamilton, Lord J.

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Robert

  Brinton, Tim

  Durant, Tony

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Eggar, Tim

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Burt, Alistair

  Fallon, Michael

  535

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stir/ing)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Jackson, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  Jessel, Toby

  Franks, Cecil

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Freeman, Roger

  Kellett—Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Gale, Roger

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Galley, Roy

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Garel—Jones, Tristan

  Lamont, Norman

  Glyn, DrAlan

  Latham, Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Gorst, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Gow, Ian

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Greenway, Harry

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Gregory, Conal

  Lennox—Boyd, Hon Mark

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Lester, Jim

  Ground, Patrick

  Lilley, Peter

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Luce, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Hannam, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Harris, David

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Harvey, Robert

  Major, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maples, John

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Marlow, Antony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mather, Carol

  Hayes, J.

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hayward, Robert

  Maxwell—Hyslop, Robin

  Heddle, John

  Moate, Roger

  Henderson, Barry

  Moore, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hirst, Michael

  Newton, Tony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Holt, Richard

  Pollock, Alexander

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd—on—A)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Powley, John

  Hubbard—Miles, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  536

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Ryder, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B heath)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waddington, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walden, George

  Sims, Roger

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Waller, Gary

  Spencer, Derek

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  StanbroOk, Ivor

  Warren, Kenneth

  Steen, Anthony

  Watson, John

  Stern, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Wheeler, John

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wood, Timothy

  Sumberg, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That this House notes that the period for consultation on the consultative document on wages councils is only just ending and representations are still being received; and asks the Government to take into account the views of the Employment Committee, together with the very many other responses from interested organisations and individuals. '.

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
  Mr. Speaker: I have to tell the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) that the digital clocks are incorrect, and that he should time his speech on the clocks at the end of the Chamber.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I shall look at the right clock.
  The debate on super power nuclear arms control is rarely out of the news, and rightly so. The waste of resources and the fear engendered by escalating nuclear arsenals is the frightening consequence of our inability to agree on a reversal of the nuclear arms race. The super powers' massive overcapacity in nuclear weapons, unbalanced though it is, will mean suicide for all, whoever initiates a nuclear war. Therefore, I believe that neither of the major powers, East or West, has people in control who are so malignant, so unfettered by the party or Government apparatus, to wish or to be permitted to consign his own countrymen and the rest of the world to ultimate destruction.
  Monstrous though the arms race is, I believe that our over-preoccupation with it, to the exclusion of all else, blinds us to the greater and growing danger of nuclear and atomic proliferation. I am convinced that if nuclear war ever broke out it would be initiated not by the super powers but by a nation without any sense of responsibility, where power is concentrated in the hands of the evil, the insane, or the bigoted dictator.
  That threat is real. To understand why that is so it is necessary for me to digress, and briefly explain how bombs are made, who has them and the effectiveness or otherwise of past and current controls.
  There are two methods to producing these weapons —the plutonium route and the separated uranium 235 route. The plutonium method originally required large plant and considerable expenditure, but utilised only moderately sophisticated technology. Nowadays, the plant is cheaper, but the technology is considerably more complicated and the plutonium bomb is difficult to explode.
  The uranium route previously required large and complex plant and was very expensive. Today, the plant is relatively cheap and compact, and the technology is well known to those who have the expertise to look it up. In a room the size of a large drawing room, one could make enough fissile material for one bomb a year, and that bomb is relatively easy to explode.
  Initially the control of nuclear and atomic knowledge went well. It was difficult to produce separated uranium 235 from uranium 238 by the diffusion process, the plant was cumbersome, expensive, fraught with technical difficulties, and the countries that had discovered uranium effectively controlled its export. Consequently, those nations that wanted to beat a path to the nuclear door were forced to follow the more expensive plutonium route by building heavy water research reactors, and in time a classic route developed for nations wishing to build a nuclear weapon. That route was that a state first obtained its natural uranium, then announced a civil nuclear programme to produce electricity and stated that it needed
  538
  to undertake research into its production. To do that, it had to build a heavy water reactor, which would make plutonium and hence the material for the plutonium bomb. That is what India has done at Trombay — using Canadian technology. It is what the Israelis say that Iraq was doing — using French technology — before Israel blew its reactor to pieces. It is what has been suggested that Argentina is doing, and Israel and Pakistan are alleged to be doing.
  However, there are drawbacks to this method. The technology is sophisticated, and hence costly, and because of their size a plutonium production reactor and associated reprocessing plant takes time to construct and in consequence its operation can be monitored externally and its capability quite easily estimated by experts.
  The passage of time and the advances in technology have made the second route, the uranium route, far more insidious. Using centrifuges or the jet process or lasers, uranium 235 is technically easier to produce than plutonium 239, the consequent bomb is easier to explode and, as I have indicated, the plant can simply be hidden or disguised.
  Thus the technology is known and the material is available, and Third world countries have grasped the opportunity. India exploded a weapon in 1974; Pakistan and Argentina have embarked on the centrifuge route to an uranium bomb; South Africa has embarked on the jet process route; Brazil and Israel are using a variety of methods. Some may have already reached their goal.
  It is sometimes simplistically suggested that if the major nuclear powers denied nuclear technology to other nations and removed the assistance they are already giving, all would be well. If the answer had been that simple, the world is still sane enough, and its leaders sensible enough, to have ensured that such a moderately simple action would have been taken. Indeed, that is what they have attempted. To begin with, the United States was able to impose controls to prevent other nations from acquiring a nuclear capacity by gaining a monopoly over the technical know-how and uranium deposits, and it worked—for a short time.
  As other western nations invested huge sums in gaining nuclear expertise, they felt the need to recoup part of their investment, and assist exports, by passing on their knowledge to Third world countries. In 1956 the Americans, through the United Nations, attempted to ensure that all countries in receipt of nuclear technology opened their programmes to inspection by the new International Atomic Energy Agency. The Soviet Union and other countries since have refused, although the Soviets may well be changing their mind because I have little doubt that they are as frightened about proliferation as we are.
  Many countries, including major suppliers such as France, refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty in 1968, for sovereignty or commercial reasons, or in the case of non-nuclear states, because they felt that by signing it they would not necessarily enhance their ability to obtain the promised benefits of civil nuclear power. Meanwhile, we and the United States recognised the problem but failed to deal with it. We have demanded "full scope safeguards", in other words, the right to inspect all nuclear facilities including those we have not assisted with, if we are to provide assistance with future civil nuclear plant. Many nations have refused to accept such conditions and, despite the cost, have gone it alone. Even

  539
  those countries that have signed the 1968 non-proliferation treaty, such as Japan and West Germany, find it easier under the terms of the treaty to sell nuclear technology to non-signatories such as Brazil, Argentina, Israel and Chile, than to those that have signed the treaty.
  Therefore, the treaty is failing in two ways. First, there are significant omissions among the countries subscribing to it—India, Pakistan, Israel, Argentina, South Africa, France, China, Chile and Brazil. Secondly, commercial considerations appear to persuade signatories to sell to non-signatory nations in preference to those who are signatories. Furthermore, the non-weapon states do not believe, or at least use as an excuse, that the nuclear states are complying with article 6, the disarmament clause. In addition, non-nuclear states fear that nuclear states will use the threat of cutting off nuclear supplies as an element of non-nuclear foreign policy if they deal with an NPT signatory. But all the countries that have recently obtained the technology to produce nuclear and atomic weapons attest that their only reason for investing in this technology is to enable them to have a civil nuclear programme. Maybe the best way to curtail proliferation is to take them at their word.
  The paradox is this. Whilst the major nuclear powers deny other countries access to nuclear technology, these countries always have the excuse that they require fissile material-producing research reactors in order to develop their own expertise in civil nuclear power generation.
  But the Soviets supply their Communist satellites with all nuclear services on the provision that all spent fuel is returned to the USSR for reprocessing, and they ensure that that happens. That is the model that we should adopt. By supplying the technology for nuclear reactors to Third world countries, but only leasing the nuclear fuel, which would have to be returned for reprocessing, there would be no excuse for building a pilot reprocessing plant, or for producing uranium 235 from uranium 238. Indeed, any country building such a plant would be doing so only in order to gain the facility for producing nuclear or atomic weapons. The existence of a plutonium plant would be difficult to hide from external view, and by ensuring that all spent fuel was returned, none of the plutonium could be purloined for the manufacture of weapons.
  I therefore believe that the non-proliferation treaty must be amended to permit the major nuclear nations to supply the technology required for the construction of nuclear power plants and the associated fuel cycle services on the understanding that: first, the nuclear fuel is only leased and must be returned for reprocessing; second, the recipient agrees not to engage in a uranium or plutonium weapons-building programme, or develop its expertise in those directions; and, third, an internationally agreed inspectorate is permitted to examine all civil nuclear plants as part of the "nuclear fuel leasing service".
  As the recipient country will know that its development of plutonium bombs can be monitored, it will be put off from doing so by the certain knowledge that it would lose assistance with its civil nuclear programme. Once the recipient invests in that programme, the power generated and other trade and commercial considerations will be so great that the donor nations will be able to exert an effective pressure if the recipient ever appeared to be undertaking the atomic bomb route.
  But the donor nations will also have to provide assurances. They will have to agree not to curtail nuclear supplies or services for reasons other than non-compliance
  540
  with the three reasons I have given, or in the event of war. They will need to do that to reassure the eventual recipient that he will not be cut off from nuclear power generation.
  Some have suggested that the non-proliferation treaty needs to be enforced more rigorously, and that that is all that is necessary. I do not agree. I believe that entrenching failure — because I believe that the non-proliferation treaty has failed, and I have demonstrated that it has failed —is not the answer. There is not time between now and September to rewrite and renegotiate a new treaty. Let us keep the current treaty and renegotiate a new treaty in a year's time or perhaps later. I feel that the Soviets would be interested in that.
  While the world is in the midst of recession and while development of civil nuclear programmes is so expensive, my suggestion might have some chance of success. But with the world coming out of recession and nuclear expertise becoming more widespread, that chance is slipping away. It is not too late for our world to limit nuclear and atomic weapons, but it could soon well be.
  10.28 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) on raising this debate on what is undoubtedly an extremely important issue relating to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. He has done a great service. I assure him that I shall consider carefully the detailed and well-thought-out points that he raised. If I cannot answer them all in the debate, I shall write to him in more detail.
  The spread of nuclear weapons to countries that do not now possess them would have the gravest consequences for mankind, as my hon. Friend said. The chief barrier against such proliferation is the non-proliferation treaty, which bans the transfer by nuclear weapon states of nuclear weapons to any other recipient, and their acquisition or manufacture by non-nuclear weapon states. The treaty therefore increases the security of the world and the Government are strongly committed to supporting and strengthening it.
  Negotiating the treaty in the 1960s was a major diplomatic achievement and Britain can be proud of having helped to draft it and of having been among the earliest to sign it. As my hon. Friend has said, the third review conference of the treaty will take place this August. We attach considerable importance to this meeting and have played our part as a depository Government in convening it.
  I differ from my hon. Friend in his judgment about the success or failure of the treaty. I believe that it has been successful. In the 1960s it was predicted that there would be up to 20 additional nuclear weapon states by 1985. In fact, only one further state—India, which is not a party to the treaty in 1974 — demonstrated the capacity to detonate a nuclear explosive device. That may be partly because nuclear proliferation is not so straightforward technically as my hon. Friend suggests, but much of the credit must go to the existence of the treaty. The treaty is the most widely supported arms control agreement in existence, with nearly 130 parties or four fifths of the United Nations membership, and no state has exercised its right to withdraw from the treaty.
  I do not entirely share my hon. Friend's view that the treaty is failing simply because there are significant non-parties, although the non-participation of those states is

  541
  clearly a weakness. The vast majority of the world community has adhered to the treaty and that fact alone is of the greatest importance to the security of all states whether or not they are parties to the treaty.
  Clearly the treaty would be even more effective if membership were universal. In collaboration with other states party to the treaty, we have been lobbying most of the 40 or so non-parties to accede to the treaty. In the past year, eight have done so, four of them in London, thus demonstrating the treaty's continued vitality.
  Two states which possess nuclear weapons—France and China—are not parties to the treaty, but France has said that she will act as though she were a party and China has stated that she does not advocate or encourage proliferation.
  Among the non-parties which do not possess nuclear weapons several have significant nuclear facilities not open to international inspection. My hon. Friend has 'referred to some of them. They are Argentina, India, Israel, Pakistan and South Africa. We attach particular importance to membership of the treaty by those countries and will continue to co-operate in international efforts to urge them to accede to the treaty. Pending their accession or their acceptance of internationally supervised safeguards on all their nuclear facilities, our policy is not to export nuclear materials, equipment or technology to them except for unambiguously peaceful purposes and then only on a very carefully controlled basis.
  Article 3 of the treaty refers to safeguards, on which my hon. Friend has expressed some interesting and important views. He suggests that the treaty should be amended so that fuel would be leased to recipient countries and returned to the supplier for reprocessing, that the recipient should agree not to build nuclear weapons and that an internationally agreed inspectorate should examine all civil plants as part of what my hon. Friend described as nuclear fuel leasing services.
  I sympathise very much with my hon. Friend's motives in putting forward those ideas, and I certainly appreciate his concern for adequate safeguards, which is at the heart of the agreement. Nevertheless, I believe that we should be very cautious about any proposals to amend the treaty itself. Any amendments must be approved by a majority of the nearly 130 parties to the treaty. Even if it were possible to win sufficient support, any proposed change would give rise to floods of other amendments that we might not be able to support. I believe, therefore, that it is much better to leave the text of the treaty unaltered so as not to endanger the whole treaty which has served us well.
  I remind my hon. Friend of the vital role already played by the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in verifying the binding international legal obligations which the treaty imposes on non-nuclear weapon state parties not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Article III requires such safeguards to be applied to all source or special fissionable material anywhere in the territory of the state concerned or under its jurisdiction or control. Safeguards are designed to detect the diversion of such material away from peaceful uses. All our exports of fissionable material or equipment designed for its processing or use to any non-nuclear weapon state have been subject to safeguards under the existing terms of the treaty. I pay tribute to the
  542
  valuable role of the IAEA in administering the safeguards system. The United Kingdom will continue to co-operate fully with IAEA safeguards and will assist the agency's efforts further to improve the system. I shall be visiting Vienna next week to learn more about the agency's work.
  My hon. Friend may also wish to be reminded that we are one of 22 countries which apply the Nuclear Suppliers' Group guidelines to our exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology to any non-nuclear weapon state for peaceful purposes. The guidelines reinforce the treaty. In addition to requiring IAEA safeguards on the items transferred, the guidelines require formal governmental assurances to be obtained from the recipient that the exported item will not be used to manufacture nuclear explosive devices, that it will be protected against theft or sabotage, and that if it is re-exported the new purchaser will be required to give the same assurances as the original customer. In the case of enriched uranium or plutonium, the prior consent of the original supplier must be obtained before re-transfer can take place. The guidelines also urge restraint on the transfer of sensitive technology such as reprocessing or enrichment facilities. I believe that the existing requirements go far to meet my hon. Friend's concerns.
  As to the specific proposal for fuel leasing, the suggestion is not entirely new and certainly has some attractions. However, the system could not now be watertight because the treaty member states are not the exclusive suppliers of nuclear fuel. As for the establishment of an international inspectorate, that already exists in the form of the IAEA. We should continue to support efforts to extend IAEA safeguards to cover all nuclear facilities in all non-nuclear weapon states that are not parties to the treaty. We are doing all that we can to promote universal adherence to the treaty.
  Article IV is an important part of the treaty, which deals with the peaceful use of nuclear energy. When the treaty was negotiated, many non-nuclear weapon states believed that if they were to forgo the option to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons, this should not be at the expense of their right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. For that reason, article IV of the treaty both reaffirms that right and enjoins all parties to facilitate the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and technology for peaceful purposes.
  In association with the safeguards required for article III, article IV seeks to promote the safe expansion of peaceful nuclear trade, but minimises the risk of nuclear proliferation. That can help the economic development of many. of the member states. We have fully complied with our obligations under this article. As one of the first countries to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, we have considerable experience in the area and will continue to share our expertise with other countries, within the limits imposed by our overall non-poliferation policy.
  The other important article in the treaty—article VI —deals with disarmament negotiations. It embodies the common determination of the parties to work for nuclear disarmament. The Government are strongly committed to the goals of this article. Therefore, we warmly welcome the arms control negotiations in Geneva between the United States and the Soviet Union. We fully support the agreed objective of preventing an arms race in outer space, and terminating it on earth. Negotiations between the superpowers, which possess 95 per cen. of the world's

  543
  nuclear weapons, are the first priority in pursuing the effective nuclear disarmament measures prescribed by the treaty.
  Some critics maintain that the first step towards fulfilment of article VI is the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban. I hope to explain the Government's views on this issue at greater length in the Adjournment debate which is planned for tomorrow and is to be raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). All I say at this stage is that, in my view, it would serve no one's interest for progress towards a comprehensive test ban—which is of great importance— to be artificially linked to the continued adherence to the non-proliferation treaty and its future. The non-proliferation treaty is important in its own right. We must not jeopardise it by holding it hostage to progress in other areas, however important they may be.
  We are actively preparing for the treaty review conference which begins at the end of August. We have taken a full part in the work of the preparatory committee in which we chaired the group of Western countries. We have maintained close contact with other member states, including in particular the United States and the Soviet Union. It is worth emphasising that non-proliferation is an area of foreign policy where the views of both East and West largely coincide, as my hon. Friend acknowledged in his speech. As a Government we approach this review conference in a positive and constructive spirit.
  544
  I shall be attending the conference and will deliver the main British statement in the general debate. Our aim is to provide an outcome which maintains, and if possible strengthens, this arms control treaty. This will be facilitated if the parties review the treaty as a whole in a balanced manner, recognising its success in preventing horizontal proliferation and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. We are not complacent about the review conference but are encouraged by the progress made by the preparatory committee and the flexibility and good will displayed by those member states which participated in its work.
  I believe that the arms control talks in Geneva between the United States and the Soviet Union will improve the atmosphere of debate on article VI; because such negotiations are precisely what this article requires. Once again, we urge all non-parties to reconsider their position and to adhere to this indispensable treaty which has done so much to make the world a safer place.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and I assure him that I shall give very careful thought to the specific points he has raised.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Broadcasting Offences
  Broadcasting Offences
  "Killing for Company"
  "Killing for Company"
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Import Penetration
  Import Penetration
  House of Fraser
  House of Fraser
  Value Added and Managed Data Services
  Value Added and Managed Data Services
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
PRIME MINISTER
  Pay Review Bodies
  Pay Review Bodies
  Israeli Foreign Minister
  Israeli Foreign Minister
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
ENERGY
  Atomic Energy Special Constabulary
  Atomic Energy Special Constabulary
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Gas Industry (Privatisation)
  Gas Industry (Privatisation)
  Offshore Licensing
  Offshore Licensing
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Dublin Plan (Food Aid)
  Dublin Plan (Food Aid)
  Africa (Food Shortages)
  Africa (Food Shortages)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Private Members' Bills
  Private Members' Bills
  List of Members
  List of Members
TRANSPORT
  Philippine Airlines
  Philippine Airlines
  Air Traffic (Landing Agreements)
  Air Traffic (Landing Agreements)
  London-Australia Air Services
  London-Australia Air Services
  Okehampton Bypass
  Okehampton Bypass
  Thames Piers
  Thames Piers
  British Airports Authority
  British Airports Authority
  British Rail (Surplus Land)
  British Rail (Surplus Land)
WALES
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  NHS Hospitals (Mid-Glamorgan)
  NHS Hospitals (Mid-Glamorgan)
  Afforestation
  Afforestation
  Felling Licences
  Felling Licences
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Southampton Skillcentre
  Southampton Skillcentre
  Community Programmes (Leicester)
  Community Programmes (Leicester)
  Asbestos Removal (Faslane)
  Asbestos Removal (Faslane)
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Parental Leave
  Parental Leave
ENVIRONMENT
  Cayman Turtle Farm
  Cayman Turtle Farm
  Turtles (Products)
  Turtles (Products)
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Sea Pollution
  Sea Pollution
  Multiple Occupation
  Multiple Occupation
  Dolphins and Killer Whales
  Dolphins and Killer Whales
  Asbestos Removal (Faslane)
  Asbestos Removal (Faslane)
  Accident Prevention
  Accident Prevention
  Social Needs
  Social Needs
  Housing Improvements
  Housing Improvements
  Unfit Dwellings
  Unfit Dwellings
  Homes for the Elderly
  Homes for the Elderly
  Hazardous Waste Disposal
  Hazardous Waste Disposal
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration Control (Airline. Staff)
  Immigration Control (Airline. Staff)
  Prison Population (Report)
  Prison Population (Report)
  Police Federation
  Police Federation
  Primary Purpose Rule
  Primary Purpose Rule
  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Victims of Crime (Report)
  Victims of Crime (Report)
  Civil Defence (Disasters)
  Civil Defence (Disasters)
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Data Protection Act
  Data Protection Act
  Auld Report
  Auld Report
  Experiments on Animals
  Experiments on Animals
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
  Voluntary Services Unit
  Voluntary Services Unit
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Alhaji Umaru Dikko
  Mr. Alhaji Umaru Dikko
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Police Forces (Strength)
  Police Forces (Strength)
  Prison Medical Service
  Prison Medical Service
  Illegal Animal Fights
  Illegal Animal Fights
  Broadcasting Act 1981
  Broadcasting Act 1981
  Television Programmes (Subtitling)
  Television Programmes (Subtitling)
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  County Council Elections
  County Council Elections
  Young Children
  Young Children
  Jersey
  Jersey
  ATO Civil Defence Committee
  ATO Civil Defence Committee
  Community Radio
  Community Radio
  TV Concessionary Licensing
  TV Concessionary Licensing
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Police National Reporting Centre
  Police National Reporting Centre
  Security Service (Ombudsman)
  Security Service (Ombudsman)
  Football Stadia (Policing)
  Football Stadia (Policing)
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  Youth Custody
  Youth Custody
  Temporary Admissions
  Temporary Admissions
  Police Foot Patrols
  Police Foot Patrols
  Commercial Television Channels
  Commercial Television Channels
  Police Authorities (Civilian Staff)
  Police Authorities (Civilian Staff)
  Rape
  Rape
  Animal Procedures
  Animal Procedures
  Murder (Statistics)
  Murder (Statistics)
  Tamils
  Tamils
  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
  Immigration Statistics
  Immigration Statistics
  Metropolitan Police (Arrests)
  Metropolitan Police (Arrests)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Spending
  School Spending
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Hedgerows
  Hedgerows
  Forestry
  Forestry
  National Food Survey
  National Food Survey
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Namibia
  Namibia
  South Africa
  South Africa
  European Foundation
  European Foundation
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Central America
  Central America
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Clinical Assistants
  Clinical Assistants
  Mrs. Savage
  Mrs. Savage
  Tinnitus
  Tinnitus
  Rural Family Practitioners
  Rural Family Practitioners
  Departmental Records
  Departmental Records
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Infection Control
  Infection Control
  Hospital-Acquired Infection
  Hospital-Acquired Infection
  Children (Benefits)
  Children (Benefits)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Board and Lodging Allowance
  Board and Lodging Allowance
  School Health Statistics
  School Health Statistics
  Child Accident Statistics
  Child Accident Statistics
  Health (Social Inequalities)
  Health (Social Inequalities)
  RAWP Formulae
  RAWP Formulae
  Community Health
  Community Health
  Clinics (Access and Facilities)
  Clinics (Access and Facilities)
  School Health Service
  School Health Service
  Schools (Health Education)
  Schools (Health Education)
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Drugs and Alcohol (Health Campaigns)
  Drugs and Alcohol (Health Campaigns)
  Cancer Screening
  Cancer Screening
  Severe Hypertension
  Severe Hypertension
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Health (Social Inequalities)
  Health (Social Inequalities)
  Primary Health Care (London)
  Primary Health Care (London)
  Family Practitioner Committees (Computers)
  Family Practitioner Committees (Computers)
  Pensioners (Cumbernauld)
  Pensioners (Cumbernauld)
  Supplementary Benefit (Requirement Allowances)
  Supplementary Benefit (Requirement Allowances)
  Undernourishment
  Undernourishment
  Benefits (Newham)
  Benefits (Newham)
  Meals on Wheels (Newham)
  Meals on Wheels (Newham)
  Pensioners (Newham)
  Pensioners (Newham)
  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  Benefit Claimants (Water Rates)
  Benefit Claimants (Water Rates)
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Chorionic Villus Sampling
  Chorionic Villus Sampling
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Pensions
  Pensions
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Licences
  Licences
  Divis Flats
  Divis Flats
  House Building (Cost)
  House Building (Cost)
  Test Holes (Cost)
  Test Holes (Cost)
  Mater Hospital
  Mater Hospital
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Lear Fan
  Lear Fan
  Killeen (Terrorism)
  Killeen (Terrorism)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Commercial Explosives
  Commercial Explosives
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Policing Policy
  Policing Policy
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Board of Inland Revenue (Chairman's Letter)
  Board of Inland Revenue (Chairman's Letter)
  Customs and Excise (Computer Programmers)
  Customs and Excise (Computer Programmers)
  Economic Statistics
  Economic Statistics
  Income Statistics (West Midlands)
  Income Statistics (West Midlands)
SCOTLAND
  Tinnitus Masking Devices
  Tinnitus Masking Devices
  Broadleaved Woodland
  Broadleaved Woodland
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  List D Schools
  List D Schools

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

EC Consumer Affairs
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 are now in a position to make a further statement on any progress made on European Community consumer affairs in the Council of Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I represented the Government at the Council of Ministers on consumer affairs on 21st May. I am pleased to say that there was a full discussion on the proposal for a directive on product liability which led to a constructive review of member states' attitudes to the current compromise solution.
The proposals for a directive on doorstep selling and consumer credit and those for an EC-wide home accident surveillance system were also discussed by the council.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister two questions arising from his Answer? Can he tell the House what obstacles remain to agreement by the council on the draft directive on doorstep selling? Secondly, can he tell us what progress was made on the draft directive on consumer credit?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, so far as doorstep selling is concerned, some members of the Community have domestic difficulties which they have yet to reconcile. Having said that, indication was given that a reconciliation is probable. On the consumer credit angle, all Ministers representing their countries expressed some reservations about the Commission's current proposals and have asked the Commission to rethink those proposals.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assessment of his views as to the depth of differences that may divide certain members of the Community? Are the differences on questions of principle, or are they merely matters which, after the lapse of perhaps a few weeks, can be satisfactorily sorted out? In short, is there broad agreement, with no basic difference between the members of the Community, on the proposals which have been put forward by the Commission?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is referring to the product liability discussions. There are no basic differences of principle. I am optimistic that, given
842
another two or three weeks, the detail can be satisfactorily reconciled.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the Minister said that the product liability directive was likely to result in a successful compromise, but am I not right in thinking that that compromise will result in a very weak directive, leaving it on certain of the main issues to the individual countries to do precisely what they want? In particular, if Germany and France, and some of the others, rule out the state of the art defence for drug manufacture, as they are likely to do, and we keep it, is there not a fair prospect of this country being used for experiments, being the one place where a company will be able to experiment without any risk of liability if things go wrong? Are the Government really happy about this? Are the Government really content that our citizens should become, as it were, the guinea-pigs of Europe?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not accept that the ultimate conclusion of these discussions will necessarily be a compromise; neither is there any weakness in it. The development defence which is causing some difficulties with some countries is likely to be resolved, though it is true that certain derogations may apply, leaving individual countries particular options over a number of years. It is the matter of detail as to the number of years which is currently being discussed. However, I do not accept that our citizens will become anybody's guinea-pigs at all.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, may I return for a moment to the question of doorstep selling and ask the Minister whether he recalls that the House of Lords Select Committee on doorstep selling reported long ago in 1977? Is not this progress very slow? Can he be more precise in indicating when there will be agreement on this draft directive?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says—that 1977 to 1985 is, in some lights, a very long time. I should not like to hazard a guess as to when there might be a successful outcome. However, I said originally that I was encouraged by the discussions to believe that the outcome is that much nearer than I felt it was when last I reported to your Lordships' House.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord the Minister on this, but can he tell us as a matter of fact whether it is true that it will be open to Germany, for example, to rule out a state of the art defence, whereas this Government seem determined to keep it? Is that a fact?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is not a fact at this moment in time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would the Government be prepared to consider drugs on a totally different basis from other products? In other words, would they be prepared to introduce strict liability for drugs; forgetting about other products for the moment? Is my noble friend aware of the relationship between this important question and the last Question on the Order Paper?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in response to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, we are not really in favour of separating product liability as between one subject area and another.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister explain his appalling phrase, "That is not a fact at this moment in time"? Does it mean that when agreement is reached Germany will in fact be in that position?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I used that expression to the noble Lord rather than saying that his question was hypothetical because the outcome of our discussions is some little way away. When we are in complete agreement—and it is the intention, the hope and the work of the presidency of the council to get complete agreement throughout the whole range of subjects—I can give the noble Lord a far more accurate answer.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while still believing that the noble Lord wishes to help and to get a move on with these general matters, is he able to tell the House when he expects a further meeting to take place? Are the working groups that have been set up due to report before any further meeting takes place; and can he give us any more details?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the permanent representatives are meeting to discuss this subject on 14th June, they having been given three weeks since the last meeting to consult with their Governments in an endeavour to find a satisfactory outcome. There is obviously some degree of flexibility evident in all countries, and I would anticipate that, at about a fortnight from that date, Ministers will meet again.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if we approach these matters on the basis that this country itself has power to settle any of these things then we are well on the way to ruining the possible development of the Community? Is it not still at the stage of a meeting of nations, and that they have not yet got to the point where the affinity is such that one can talk as though it is one body making a decision? Is not slowness the only way of getting to the point where the whole thing will work?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, with his experience of European matters, for his supplementary question, with which I can only say that I am in complete agreement.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord was saying that the Government were not prepared to distinguish between drugs and other consumer goods. Why not?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is because we believe in the principle of product liability whatever the product may be.

Plant Diseases: Import Precautions
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what precautions are being taken to prevent the spread of plant diseases through the importation of foreign plants, fruit and vegetables into the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have a very strict defence system against plant pests and diseases on commercial consignments. Imports of plants, potatoes and certain cut flowers, seeds, fruits and vegetables are prohibited unless a plant health certificate is supplied by the exporting country confirming that our health conditions have been met. Inspectors carry out checks at ports, markets, farms and nurseries to ensure that imported material is not infected. We are at present running two special plant health publicity campaigns.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that splendid Answer. I hope that the measures taken have had the effect which he expected; namely, that there has been a big decrease in infections present in plants that have entered this country.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the number of plant health inspectors in England has gone up, and there is a good deal of work going on in Scotland and in Northern Ireland on plant health inspection, but it is the fact that we still find that diseases come in from time to time. I think the one word that one must remember is, "vigilance".
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are some seeds which get into grain imported into this country, being the seeds of weeds which are not native to this country, which are very noxious when they arrive? Will they be included in the studies that are being made?
Lord Belstead: My. Lords, if the particular grain seeds in which the grass seeds are lodged are among those mentioned in the European Community plant health directive, then, of course, they will need to have accompanying them a certificate from the country of origin; otherwise, if, later, my noble friend would like to give me details of the particular grain seeds that he has in mind, I shall be able to give him an answer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the prospect of all sorts of pests coming in by air makes it very much more difficult? And is he satisfied that there are enough health inspectors at airports to deal with the conditions resulting from the speed of air travel?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord, who has put his finger on the problems created by the swiftness of travel today compared with a hundred years ago, when people used to bring interesting material back from abroad. At that time it was very likely the pests which accompanied that material would die in transit. This is not the case today. It is for this reason that on 29th April we launched a special campaign for a new set of posters to be put up in all public places and also to be slipped into material being used by travel agents, which we hope will be a warning to private travellers about this problem.
In answer to the noble Lord's second supplementary, yes, I believe that the increase in the number of plant health inspectors which took place in 1980 from 75 to 86 in England, accompanied by 74 man-years in Scotland and 42 man-years in Northern Ireland, is sufficient to deal with this matter, including at airports.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the inspectors of the Ministry of Agriculture are in a position to give attention to the import of seeds and plants known as cannabis?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that we are on a rather different point there.

Czechoslovakia: Trade with United Kingdom
3.20 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they propose to take to increase the volume of trade with Czechoslovakia, following the recent visit to Eastern Europe by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade has recently returned from Czechoslovakia, where he followed up points made by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in April and endorsed the efforts of British firms trying to win business. A representative team of United Kingdom industrialists and bankers will participate in the 13th Annual United Kingdom/Czechoslovak Joint Commission to be held in London between 1st and 5th July of this year.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that informative Answer to my Question. Is he aware that several years ago I went to Czechoslovakia under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union with several noble and honourable friends from the other place? During that time, inter alia, we had some very useful discussions with representatives of their chemical industry. Is my noble friend further aware that the visit of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was an impressive one? Can
846
he also confirm that he will be going to the Brno Fair in September as a representative of Her Majesty's Government? If so, perhaps I may say that he will have the very best wishes of all sides of your Lordships' House.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Auckland; and, indeed, the whole House will be aware of the noble Lord's interest in export and import matters, and trade generally with Czechoslovakia, for which we are grateful. I confirm that chemical materials and products are in fact one of the most important of our exports to Czechoslovakia. Again, I confirm that in September the British Overseas Trade Board will give financial support for a joint ventuure at the Brno Trade Fair, which I shall attend on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that our trade deficit with Czechoslovakia for 1984 was slightly over £39 million? Has his department drawn the attention of British industry to any specialist fields which the Ministry itself thinks ought to be pursued more vigorously by industrialists in the United Kingdom?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that there was a balance of trade in favour of Czechoslovakia. I confirm also that most of the top ten exports to Czechoslavakia have some relevance to the work of my department, and by the two methods which I described in my earlier answers we are encouraging the promotion of further business in those areas.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, reminisces, perhaps I may recall that I conducted the trade talks with the Czechoslovaks soon after the war, and the standard of trade then was much higher than it is today.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, of course I remember the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, having trade talks when he was in another place. I fear, however, that I cannot remember the balance of trade figures at that time.

Vaccine Damage Payments
3.24 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: 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 intend to introduce legislation to restore the value of the non-indexed payments of £10,000 provided for by the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no. We have no plans to make any changes to the Vaccine Damage Payments Act.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to be so troublesome to the Front Bench today, but that Answer will be heard with regret and, indeed,

847
puzzlement by some of the most unfortunate members of our society. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to explain a little more fully than he has so far, so that some of us can in our turn explain to those concerned, why it is that whereas the Conservative Opposition regarded £10,000 as barely adequate when they acquiesced in the 1979 Act, now that they are in government they are content with what in real terms is already less than two-thirds of that amount and will be steadily going down, alas!, as the years go by. There ought to be a more fundamental solution; but, at the very least, is it not time to remove this inbuilt obsolescence in an Act which was never intended to be permanent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I realise what a very sensitive subject this is. I think that in many respects, although there might be regret and puzzlement, as the noble Lord said, there will be a general welcome that we are moving towards a more comprehensive scheme for the disabled, which is the reason why we are not increasing the £10,000 payment. It would not be reduced by two-thirds, as he said. I beg your Lordships' pardon; I misheard the noble Lord. I shall move on to his next point, which was that we were content when in opposition to call the £10,000 payment derisory, and that the vaccine damage payments scheme was just an interim measure.
It was our policy when we were in opposition, as it has been since we took office, as I have said, to work towards a more comprehensive scheme for the disabled. For that reason we have asked the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to undertake the first fullscale review of the disability payments for some 16 years.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister, at the risk of being persistent and tiresome, which I know I have been on this subject, whether he is aware that these brain-damaged children, according to the findings of the Pearson Commission, are in a special category of disability because the vaccine is administered with the encouragment of the Government to protect the public interest? Is he also aware that in 1975 the Government gave an assurance to the commission in Case No. 7135 to the effect that they proposed to introduce—and I quote now from memory—a general compensation scheme based upon strict liability? Is he also aware that the Act of 1979 has failed to fulfil that assurance?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware that the Pearson Report said that the people in question are in a special category. But as my noble friend is aware from the two debates that we have had, one last year and one on 8th May of this year, neither the last Government nor this Government have accepted all the points in the Pearson Report. With regard to my noble friend's point that the vaccination is to protect the community, I can only refer him back to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in the debate on 8th May, which was that in the Government's opinion it is not. It is to protect the child, and not the community.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that, as the then Minister who introduced this into another place, I am grossly dissatisfied—as, I am certain, are very many Members on both sides of the House—with the reply that has been given by the noble Earl? Does he recognise that this Bill was introduced before the Government—or the Opposition, for that matter—had given consideration to the recommendations of the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Pearson and that it was not intended to be a form of compensation for a gross degree of disablement? We are talking, after all, about only a few hundred youngsters here. It was thought at the time that it would be followed by a scheme. But, of course, Governments changed. Therefore, it is really unfair to the individuals and the families concerned that what was a small sum at that time is an even smaller sum now. Is it not time that the Government recognised that this is grossly unfair to those people involved who, after all, undertook this particular form of inoculation as part of the protection of the community?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, it was not protection of the community; it was protection of the individual, as I have already stated. The noble Lord said that many people would be disappointed. I would only say to him that on the 8th May his noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said at col. 678 of Hansard:
"What the country and our society really lacks is a coherent policy towards disabled people."
That is what this Government are trying to achieve. They have undertaken significant work, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will know. As I have said, we have commissioned this full-scale survey which for the first time will include children, and I am sure that this is the right way to proceed.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree it is highly desirable, as the noble Earl has said, that the Government are moving towards a comprehensive scheme for the disabled; but is it not incomprehensible that that should be used as an excuse for the non-indexation of payments for vaccine-damaged children? Why can there not be a move towards a comprehensive scheme for the disabled and, in the interim, the indexation of these payments? How is one to justify the non-indexation of these payments? That was in fact the original Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and we have not had an answer to it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, feels that I have not given a satisfactory answer. I think that any changes we would make to this scheme would only increase the preference, which would run counter to our general aim of working towards a more coherent system of benefits for disabled people, irrespective of the cause of disability.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would the noble Earl indicate when we are to receive the details of the proposed general disability scheme? When is it going to be introduced? I certainly made that observation in May in the hope that by now we would have received further and better particulars.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government, too, would like it to be now, but the survey is such a detailed and complicated one that I am advised that it will not be ready until early 1987.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Renton: My Lords, while realising that my noble friend Lord Caithness has no personal responsibility for the decisions in these matters, and while admiring the spirited way in which he has attempted to defend the Government's action, will he draw to the attention of senior Ministers who are responsible the strong feelings and views about this matter expressed on both sides of the House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton, and I confirm that I shall draw these views to the attention of my right honourable friends and my noble friends. As we are always looking into this matter, I am sure they will be most interested in what has been said today.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, whatever the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may have said upon some other occasion, is the Minister really telling the House this afternoon that vaccination against an infectious disease is not a protection for the community even though it also protects the child?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the vaccination is undertaken on a voluntary basis, with guidance from the best medical advice that an individual can get, and it is a matter for the individual.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that it is actually the advice of his own department, the Department of Health and Social Security, that people should be vaccinated unless there is some contraindication at the time that it is unwise? Does he not accept that it is public policy?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, it is perfectly clear that I, as one of the Ministers, am clearly responsible and that I should get up at this time and say that I shall certainly take note of the views of the House and will pass them on to my colleagues.

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment this afternoon my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the contamination of tap water in the Norman Shaw South Building.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Interception of Communications Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During the adjournment, the Report stage of the Hospital Complaints Procedure Bill and the Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Bill will be taken.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is really necessary to repeat this Statement in this House? We are all of course very much interested in the welfare of another place, but surely they are able to take care of themselves I think the time has come when we really should look at Statements from the point of view of considering whether they are of real importance to this House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I must say that personally I have a certain sympathy with what the noble Earl has just said; but I think that I should just quote from the Companion to the Standing Orders, which, on Statements generally, says that:
"Ministerial statements made in the Commons are normally repeated in the Lords, unless, following discussions through the usual channels, they are not thought sufficiently important to the Lords to be repeated".
This, in the normal way, was offered through the usual channels and it was decided that it was important enough to be repeated. However, when my noble friend the Chief Whip and I announce Statements we very carefully say,
"My noble friend will, with the leave of the House".
Therefore it is very much a matter for the House. This is a matter which will be discussed shortly by the Procedure Committee and perhaps it might be better to leave this particular Statement and let the whole matter of Statements generally be considered.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may add to what the Deputy Chief Whip has said in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that in fact there is a concern at this end of the building, particularly among the staff, about the quality of the water supply. For that reason it was thought wise to take the Statement.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, may I just say that it raises questions other than that of the quality of the water supply? It raises the question of how we alert Members of both Houses and the staff to any serious emergency there may be in the Palace. I think this is a matter of great importance for this House as well as for the other place.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, if that is the wish of the House, so be it; but I would very much hope that what the noble Earl has said—namely, that there is to be consideration of this whole issue in the Procedure Committee—will enable that committee to take into account what I know is the feeling of many of your Lordships on the point that I have raised today.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, in support of what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, that it is not only Statements which are sometimes repeated when they need not be in this House but, for example, this week we had the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place repeated in this House in the form of a Statement? If Private Notice Questions and Statements are going to be taken here, that could well interfere with the general work that this House ought to be doing.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, perhaps, having noted the views put forward by your Lordships, I should say to my noble friend that in fact Private Notice Questions are offered to the Opposition through the usual channels in the normal way. Frequently they are thought to be important, and frequently, I must say, they are important-I have to say possibly rather more important perhaps than this particular one that we are discussing this afternoon. Therefore, on that basis, if the Opposition want them, it has been the habit of the Government to make sure that they have them. Having heard the debate, I am sure that the House would wish to have this Statement today. I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for what he has said. We shall have the Statement today and I am sure that in future the usual channels on all sides will take careful note of what has been said this afternoon.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before we finish this matter, may I just ask my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip whether the repetition of a Statement is really a matter for the leave of the House or whether it is a matter for the usual channels?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think the answer is that it is for both.

Local Government Bill
3.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 4,

Schedule 1,

Clause 5,

Schedule 2,

Clause 6,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 7 to 9,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 10 and 11,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 12 to 16,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 17 to 19,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 20 to 29,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 30 to 37,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 38 and 39,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 40 to 56,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 57 to 83,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 84 to 90,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 91 to 101,

Schedules 15 and 16,

Clauses 102 to 105.

—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Motor-Cycle Crash-Helmets (Restriction of Liability) Bill
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Strathcarron.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Interception of Communications Bill
3.40 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Prohibition of Interception]:
Viscount Whitelaw Viscount Whitelaw moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to the following provisions of this section,").
The noble Viscount said: I hope it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I present Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 21 together.
Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 15 and insert ("and").
Amendment No. 3: 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.").

Amendment No. 21: Clause 10, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
(" "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949;").
The amendments are all concerned with exceptions to the new interception offence.
I believe your Lordships will agree that there will be circumstances in which activities amounting to interception take place perfectly legitimately. The purpose of these exceptions to the offence is to specify those circumstances so that where they arise there is no question of criminality. The warrant imposes a

853
requirement to undertake an interception; and the exception for acting in execution of a warrant, currently Clause 1(1)(a) and Clause 1(2)(a) in the amended version, is unchanged by the amendments.
The second exception, Clause 1(1)(b), is designed to allow somebody to give consent to the interception of his communications. If somebody wants his telephone calls listened to—if, for example, a member of his family has been kidnapped or he is being blackmailed—there is no reason why this should not be done. The Government have, however, accepted that Clause 1(1)(b) is too wide. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said at Second Reading, it could allow a hotel proprietor to consent to the interception of the communications of all those in his hotel. It is not the Government's intention that this aspect should be covered by the exception.
Accordingly, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office undertook in another place to reframe the provision, and the amendments before your Lordships today fulfil that undertaking. Clause 1(1)(b) is accordingly recast as Clause 1(2)(b) in two ways. First, the consent may now be given only by the person to or from whom the communications are travelling, instead of a person occupying the premises. Thus, in the example, everybody who uses that telephone must give his consent: the proprietor and all his guests.
The new provision also contains a reference to having reasonable grounds for believing that his consent has been given, so as to secure the position of the public telecommunications operator. If a clear assurance had been given by the family of a kidnap victim that only those who had consented would be allowed to use the telephone, it would be quite wrong for an offence to be committed by a member of British Telecommunications staff simply because a neighbour was allowed into the house to use the telephone, but through an oversight was not first asked to give consent. In this way we believe that the consent provision is now properly framed, meeting the criticism about its excessive breadth and also safeguarding the position of those who with consent undertake the interception.
This amendment also clarifies the exception dealing with the provision of postal or public telecommunications services. The need for this exception was generally agreed in another place and will, I believe, be agreed by your Lordships. For example, an engineer may need to discover whether a line is being used before he starts to work on it; action may be needed to deal with persistent, obscene and harrassing telephone calls; Post Office staff may need to open an item if it apears to be inflammable or dangerous. All these activities are necessary and have long been covered in legislation. Yet all of them could, in certain circumstances, be construed as interception. It is essential that the staff of these organisations run no risk at all of criminality by properly carrying out their duties. If they exceed their duties, that is another matter and the exception will not apply to them.
The last element in this amendment is new. Further examination of the Bill since it was introduced has shown it to be necessary. Whereas the previous exception covers staff operating the public postal and
854
telecommunications systems, this confirms the exception already contained in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 for those who exercise powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts to monitor radio transmissions.
It is important that the radio spectrum is properly regulated. The whole radio licensing system, the identification and remedying of interference, and action against those who deliberately jam or intercept radio communications depends on this system of monitoring. Not only do businesses, but all of us who watch television or listen to radio, rely on such communications; they are crucial to services on which the safety of many lives depends.
Certain kinds of telecommunication on the public system are nowadays conveyed by radio for part of their journey. In due course, for example, it is the Government's intention to designate the new cellular radio services as public telecommunication systems. If there were interference with the public system—the operator would want steps taken to prevent it at once—or the public system was itself causing interference, those acting for the Secretary of State might have to monitor across a band used by that system. The content of the messages would be of no interest in itself, except to the extent that it may be relevant to establishing the nature and source of the interference. This new limb to the offence is introduced against that possibility.
Your Lordships will note that the provision is narrowly cast. It relates only to things done with the authority of the Secretary of State—that means, in practice, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and it relates only to things done under the relevant powers of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. It applies also only to the interception of communications when being conveyed by radio. A definition is added consequentially to Clause 10. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Viscount for the clear way in which he has explained these amendments. There is only one controversial issue in regard to this amendment to which I ought to draw the Committee's attention, and it is one that was raised very specifically in another place, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in this House at Second Reading. The concern was that in the Bill as it is before your Lordships and prior to this amendment—and I am referring of course to Clause 1(1)(b)—there is a provision that no offence would be committed under Clause 1 if a person occupying the premises to or from which the communication was sent had consented to the interception of his telephone call, or indeed of the communication under the Bill.
That not only raised the question of the hotel proprietor, but it also raised the question of whether somebody, who might be a guest in the premises and who was occupying them for a certain period of time, could give his consent and therefore no offence was committed. Therefore clarification was sought in another place and the Minister there, if I may put it in this way, very courteously and very sensibly said that that was a matter that would be considered and that an

855
amendment would be brought forward. It has been brought forward here at the Committee stage, and I think we all welcome it.
There was a suggestion—I ought just to conclude the argument, if there is one, by saying this—that it ought only to be by, if I may use the ugly expression, the consent of the communicatee and not just the consent of the communicator. It is sensible on reflection that it is either party who can consent to the interception. The Government have just about got it right and therefore, from these Benches, I certainly say that the amendment is in order.
Lord Denning: First, I wish to thank my noble friend the Lord President for this amendment, and I should like to point out how important it is. This Bill comes about because of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights as to how far telephone tapping should be regulated by law. The Bill puts that into effect. One of the most important provisions is that there is not to be telephone tapping at all, except under a warrant of the Secretary of State. That is one angle and it fulfils the ruling of the European Court.
But one provision here is important where the Secretary of State does not come into it at all. That is where there is telephone tapping of ordinary lines. Let me give your Lordships' Committee an illustration, which has often been given, of something which is known to happen. Telephone calls are made anonymously to a householder, sometimes to a spinster or other lady, and they are abusive, pornographic and so on. The caller does not give his name, but he harrasses the individual subscriber in that way. Clearly there ought to be permission and power to tap that telephone so as to discover who is the miscreant. My only question is: who is to authorise the telephone being tapped? There is nothing in the Bill which says so. Indeed, apparently, a clerk in the telephone office could give the authorisation, so long as he reasonably believed that the lady was being harrassed by telephone calls.
There is also the case where a kidnapper wants to telephone, or where the person who is being called wants to know who is on the other end of the telephone. Who authorises that? As I read the clause, it is not the Secretary of State who authorises it. There is no one to authorise whether or not it should be done. We are concerned here with who is called the communicatee—the person who is receiving these harrassing telephone calls—and, certainly, such a person ought to be able to get the telephone tapped.
The other problem concerns the person who says, "I should like my message tapped so as to know what the other man"—maybe the kidnapper or his victim—"is saying". It is quite right that under this new provision, with the consent of the person who is making the call, the telephone can be tapped, but on whose authority? The clause does not tell us on whose authority it is to be done, and there is nothing in the European convention about this. It is a question of the right of privacy and the like.
In the case of an important business conversation, a man may say, "I should like you to tap this telephone conversation, so as to have on record what the other
856
man says"? This may be right and it may be done, but on whose authority? As I read the provision as it stands, it is not on the authority of the Secretary of State. All the person in the telephone office has to say is, "I reasonably believed that the person who communicated with me was going to make a telephone call and he said 'I should like it tapped'." Alternatively, the person who is receiving the call says, "I am receiving all these abusive telephone calls and I should like the calls to be tapped." Who gives the authority? The provision does not say. I should like included a provision whereby proper authority is given by somebody to tap a telephone in that way. I do not know whether it should be a magistrate, a superintendent of police, or who it should be, but I should not like this to be done except with the authorisation of a proper authority, because that seems to me an essential safeguard in the matter.
In the White Paper which preceded this Bill it was said to be sufficient if it was done with the consent of the subscriber. In the Bill as it reached the other House it was the occupier of the premises who gave the consent. It is now sufficient if there is the consent of the communicator or the communicatee. But there it is. The Bill does not say at all who is to authorise it. The clerk in the telephone office could say, "I was asked by the subscriber to tap, and I did it." That would not be good enough. The monitoring ought to be done on some proper authority, because in future it will quite rightly be a criminal offence to tap telephones. Therefore, the mere consent of the communicator or the communicatee may not itself be sufficient, unless there is some control over it and some authority to see that telephone tapping is not done unless it has been vetted by some proper authority. So while I very much welcome this amendment, which is a great improvement, I suggest that there is room for further improvement.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I may beg to differ from the noble and learned Lord. It is so rarely that anybody in this House has the courage to do so that I had indeed to invigorate myself in getting up and deciding to have that courage. I wonder whether this is right. We now know that if somebody wishes to have a call intercepted because it is offensive, that is dealt with very simply by talking to the exchange and asking that it be done because there is a nuisance, or sometimes by calling in the police and getting their guidance about asking the exchange. But there are other ways in which, with the permission of one or other party, calls are regularly and properly intercepted.
As a practising lawyer, perhaps I may say this to the Committee. There are many occasions in regard to a civil case where, with the permission of the client who is the person at one end of the telephone, a telephone call is intercepted in order to produce evidence before a civil court. That sometimes happens—and very grievously so—in matrimonial cases where questions of the welfare of children sometimes come into play, but much more often where there is a conspiracy to defraud and a civil action is taken. The solicitor thereupon says, "I have got to have some evidence about this. What I am going to do is ask you to be present in my office. I will consent to this interception,

857
and I should like to listen to you talking to that other party and I want to adduce that evidence." At the present stage of affairs no authorisation is necessary in the way that the noble and learned Lord suggests.
What this clause is dealing with is an offence and what it will say, if the Committee agrees to the amendment, is that there will be no offence if one of the parties to that conversation consents to its being intercepted. Indeed, if we introduced the whole question of having to obtain the authorisation of somebody for such a conversation as I was talking about, which is intercepted so often in a legal case, then, if I may most respectfully suggest it to the noble and learned Lord, it would be a matter of grave concern to my profession and, indeed, to the one which he adorned for so many years and continues to adorn.
4 p.m.
Lord Denning: Perhaps I may just say one word. I had not heard all those arguments before. They are very good, if I may say so, but it does mean that the person at one or other end of the telephone can say to the clerk in the exchange, "Tap this conversation, will you?" It may be quite right but in a way I should be quite glad if a little further thought could be given to this question.
Lord Foot: Perhaps I may say just a few words from these Benches. It seems to me and to my colleagues that these three amendments are a genuine and real attempt to meet the criticism of the former clause. I had hoped that we were going to let this go through with complete unanimity. I was going to say to the Committee that I hoped we should go on as we had started. That has not quite happened because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has raised this interesting point.
I was also a little doubtful about the words which have been selected and wondered not so much whether somebody ought to be specified as the person who is capable of authorising such an interception but about how the consent was to be, as it were, registered. I suppose that it would be almost impossible to rewrite this little amendment so as to meet the noble and learned Lord's point, because I imagine that a number of different people might properly authorise. I should have thought that in the ordinary way it might be the general manager of the district post office who would take the responsibility. Certainly I should think it undesirable that anybody would have to go to a magistrate or to the chief of police in order that his or her consent should be given the imprimatur of the officer or the magistrate.
If the Government should think that there is any remaining substance in the noble and learned Lord's intervention, it would be proper and apt, would it not, to return to this matter at Report stage? If the Government draftsman thought that the words ought to be rewritten, we could deal with the matter at that time.
Viscount Whitelaw: I am grateful to all noble Lords for their reception of these amendments, which I am grateful they recognise to have been a genuine effort on the part of the Government to meet a problem. I hope
858
I can retain this unanimity to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred by explaining what I understand to be the present position. There is no doubt that, in a serious matter like this, the final decision will be taken by someone at British Telecom with the proper authority and indeed following established procedures.
That is what I am advised is the position. It would of course be very much in British Telecom's own interests that that should be so, and indeed very much in their operators' interests, because if a mistake was made in any way an offence would be committed. Naturally, when dealing with their own employees, British Telecom would be most anxious to ensure that they did not put them into that position.
That is the position, I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. If it were found to be sensible and reasonable to put some such definition into the Bill, it could be considered, but I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that I doubt it, because I think that British Telecom's procedures are very strict in this matter. I think it would be difficult to pin down the person concerned.
I hope I have satisfied the noble and learned Lord. When I hear two noble Lords of such immense distinction in the legal profession discussing these points, I, too, am very hesitant to come between them in any way. I hope that perhaps I may have satisfied them both.
Lord Denning: I am quite satisfied. If someone in a proper position in telecommunications authorises it, I am quite content and would not press the matter further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Whitelaw Viscount Whitelaw moved Amendment No 2:
[Printed earlier; col. 852.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Whitelaw Viscount Whitelaw moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed earlier; col. 852.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Cox: I think that this is a convenient moment to take the Statement. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Contaminated Tap Water: Norman Shaw Building
4.5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place on water contamination in the Norman Shaw South building. The Statement is as follows:
"At 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday 4th June, 22 gallons of anti-corrosive fluid intended for the central heating tank were poured into a neighbouring tank

859
serving the hand washbasins and water closets in the building. This was an inexcusable error by the Property Services Agency, for which I accept full responsibility.
"The fluid concerned was a proprietary acqueous solution containing: sodium nitrite: 30 per cent.; borax: 2 per cent.; caustic soda: 0.1 per cent.; mercapto-benzo-thi-azole: 0.5 per cent. The House will wish to know how this error occurred; what steps were taken to warn all concerned and to remove the contamination; and what is being done to prevent any recurrence. I have ordered a full investigation into all these matters and I will publish the report. In the meantime the House will wish to know what information is available to me.
"First, I would say that I was deeply concerned to learn yesterday that Mrs. Jacqueline Winter, the secretary to the Honourable Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, had been taken seriously ill in her office in the Norman Shaw South building on Tuesday afternoon. It has since become clear that this was connected with her having drunk water from a tap at a washbasin there. I am happy to be able to tell the House that she has now been released from hospital and is recovering at home. I am sure I speak for the whole House in wishing Mrs. Winter a full and speedy recovery.
"At 2.50 p.m. on 4th June the Parliamentary Works Office had received a complaint that the water coming from the washbasin taps in the water closet adjacent to the office where Mrs. Winter works had a foul taste. A technical officer was sent at 3.30 to investigate by the Parliamentary Works Office. He was unable to find any obvious cause of the trouble and decided to seek specialist advice. Neither he nor the Parliamentary Works Office was aware at that time that Mrs. Winter had been taken ill. No connection was made between Mrs. Winter's illness and the water supply until 6.45 p.m., when a request for a water sample was received from the Westminster Hospital. The Parliamentary Works Officer gave his permission immediately on being made aware of this request. At the same time he ordered a detailed check to be made by his staff, who discovered the chemical contamination at 8.50 p.m.
"The water system was fully flushed five times during Tuesday night. The Government Chemist was called in first thing on Wednesday morning to test the water. It was found to be suitable for washing but chemicals were still found in concentrations which made it unsuitable for drinking.
"During Tuesday night warning notices had been put over a number of washbasin taps, and this process was completed on Wednesday morning. In addition, the House authorities made a warning announcement over the public address system in the building as staff arrived for work on Wednesday morning. The water system was again flushed twice last night. Tests by the Government Chemist this morning have shown a further marked reduction in the contamination, though not to a level which would be acceptable for drinking. Further cleansing action is being taken and the Government chemists
860
will continue with their checks for as long as necessary.
"There are taps in the building marked 'drinking water', and these are not fed from the tank supplying the washbasins. Tests have confirmed that water from these taps has not been affected.
"I have no doubt that the urgent investigation which I have set in hand will suggest improvements investigation will cover the response to complaints which were made at that time.
"I have no doubt that the urgent investigation which I have set in hand will suggest improvements both in working practice and in communications between all concerned with the health and safety of those who work in these buildings. I can assure the House that the lessons learned from this unfortunate incident will be vigorously applied, and I apologise to the House and to the staff of the House for what has occurred."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend and I join with him in hoping that Mrs. Winter will completely recover from what must have been rather a dreadful ordeal. It should not have happened, particularly since we now understand that there may have been a similar previous occurrence. It is very alarming that the previous incident was not followed up and its cause established.
When this latest incident occurred it took a very long time to trace down the fact that the water was contaminated; and we are not told whether, when the contamination was discovered at 8.50 p.m. that evening, a warning was issued. As your Lordships are well aware, that is the middle of our working day, and presumably the building was full of people who were using that water until such time as the House rose.
Supplies of pure drinking water should be more readily available. For example, where in this part of the Palace can one find supplies of pure drinking water? None is available to me. There are no taps marked "drinking water" in any of the ladies' facilities and I hope that the gentlemen are a little more fortunate in the provision made for them. What is in the jugs here for us to drink on the Table? Do the contents of those jugs come from a tap marked "drinking water" or from a washbasin tap? I can assure your Lordships that it tastes very nasty, wherever it comes from.
Conditions in the Palace generally are bad for Members but they are even worse for staff. Although I appreciate the feelings of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who wishes that we did not have so many Statements, I hope he did not intentionally pick this particular Statement to wish away. It seems to me that in matters concerning our staff we are not always as careful as we might be. Is the Minister satisfied that the standards of hygiene set throughout the building by the PSA are satisfactory? Are they high enough?
Because we are in a palace the public health inspectors who would normally check standards are not available to us, in the sense that they cannot enter this place without invitation. Do the Government not agree that we should now invite the inspectors to enter

861
the Palace and check our standards? It seems to me that this is an example we should be prepared to set. We look forward to the report, though I imagine that we shall not have a chance to debate it. I hope that, when it is made available, with it will come assurances that such a thing will never happen again.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The undertaking that there is to be an urgent investigation into all the matters concerned is reassuring. I imagine, as the noble Baroness said, that there probably will not be a case for a debate on this matter in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless I hope that the appropriate committee will consider the matter very fully when the report is available, and will in turn report to your Lordships' House.
This is not the moment to ask specific questions which will undoubtedly be asked, and will all be answered, in the course of the investigation. I should just like to inject two more questions for that particular investigation to consider and which are not, it seems to me, satisfactorily covered in the Statement.
The Statement reported that the parliamentary works officer gave his permission for a water sample to be provided immediately upon being made aware of the request. I have reason to believe that there was some delay at that stage. I do not in any way doubt the truth of the Statement or cast any aspersions on the parliamentary works officer. But there could have been a delay, of course, before the request reached him. I hope that point will be looked into.
I also take up the point made by the noble Baroness concerning the alerting of staff. This is extremely important. The point has been made to me by a number of staff that the mechanics for dealing with this kind of matter have in the past been proved not to be all that good. When there have been bomb scares or similar occasions the fullest use has not been made, as it should be, of our public address system which is an instantaneous way of informing practically everyone who works in the building. It appears that the public address system was not used at 8.50 p.m. on Tuesday evening in the Norman Shaw building when surely it should have been. That is another matter which I feel the investigation should look into, and I have no doubt that it will.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for their reception of what I can only describe as a very serious Statement indeed. As the Statement makes clear, my honourable friend—not my right honourable friend, as I perhaps said when introducing the Statement; it was made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, rather than by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—is having all these questions investigated as a matter of great urgency. He will have prepared a report of that investigation. The report will be placed in the Library of both Houses, and he and I undertake to draw your Lordships' attention, through the Official Report, to the depositing of the report.
862
I now turn to those specific points raised by the noble Baroness and noble Lord which I can answer immediately. First, the noble Baroness asked about the water in our jugs and carafes. I can confirm that these are filled and refilled from a tap that is actually marked "drinking water" and so there is no likelihood of a repetition of this particular incident in this part of the Palace. Secondly, there is a public works officer permanently on duty in the Palace every moment that either House is sitting. My immediate answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is that that officer is empowered to take immediate action the moment that anything of this nature, or of any other nature affecting the building, is brought to his attention. Of course, he does just that.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, there are just two points I should like to raise. The first concerns the drinking water. It is of course normal for drinking water to come direct from the main and not from the roof tanks. Can part of the investigation assure us that, for cooking and everything else, there is adequate drinking water available direct from the main? One has a suspicion that that may not be the case.
Certainly I fancy that the water in the jugs in our own gentlemen's toilets, even if it originally comes from a drinking water tap, when used up on a hot day is replaced with water from the washbasin taps—or that Peers drink direct from those taps, as I have frequently done.
My second point is that in all old buildings the water supply and piping tends to grow rather like Topsy. One would like an assurance that there are adquate plans of the water system and that people working on it see those plans before they carry out any important work. This means that somebody who is used to the system and who knows it well ought always to be present when a new plumber is engaged or when major work is being carried out. Will those two points be borne in mind?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course I very naturally appreciate the concern of the House that such an unfortunate incident should not happen within the Palace of Westminster. However, perhaps I may be permitted to remind the House that the Statement concerns the Norman Shaw South building, which is not, technically at any rate, a part of the Palace of Westminster. So far as that building is concerned, I can confirm that the drinking water comes from a rising main. I would expect the position in this Palace to be the same, but, if I am wrong, I will make sure that that information goes into the report to which I have referred.
The noble Viscount asked about the age of the building. I am afraid that, offhand, I do not know the age of the Norman Shaw South building but, of course, this building is considerably older. The plans of the building do, of course, include full plans of the pipework.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord deal with the question asked by my noble friend about the public health inspectorate; namely, that the inspectorate visits this building only by invitation because it is a Royal Palace? Will the noble Lord confirm that and tell the House how many invitations

863
have been extended to the public health inspectorate over, say, the past five years?
Secondly, on the question of drinking water in this building, is the noble Lord now saying that it is unsafe for noble Lords and members of the staff to drink water from the taps in the rooms of this House apart from the taps marked "drinking water"? If that is the case, it is certainly something I knew nothing about, but I have been here for only six years and perhaps noble Lords who have been here for a very long time are aware of it. Will the noble Lord clarify that matter? Indeed, will he be good enough to tell us where this all-important tap marked "drinking water" is sited?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, there is a presumption in this country that all water is safe unless one is told that it is not safe. In other words, it is not unsafe to drink any water in the Palace of Westminster provided it comes out of a tap. However, the age of the piping is such that it is always recommended—as, indeed, it is in one's private home—to drink water from a rising main; but this is by no means totally necessary.
The answer to the question put by the noble Baroness, and prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is that public health inspectors are not invited into the Palace. The task is done by the Property Services Agency's own staff which, I have already said, is permanently on duty in the Palace. That is the system that pertains in all Government buildings.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that there are two qualities of water in this House: one from the tap marked "drinking water" and the other from the remaining taps in the building? He is saying that both are safe but one is safer than the other.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, that is not what I am saying. There are two forms of water supply within this House. One form comes out of the taps in the washbasins, which comes from a water tank situated on the roof of the building, and the other form comes in the normal way from the rising main.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that in a plumbing system so bizarre that access to the storage water tanks can be confused with that of the central heating system almost anything can happen?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said earlier: we are not talking about this building but about the Norman Shaw South building.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, may I again return to the subject of drinking water and raise one point? As one who has been concerned with the model by-laws for water, may I point out that drinking from a tap which is connected to a roof tank is, in fact, discouraged because if the tank is not adequately covered one gets bird, mice and other droppings in it? Therefore, the water purity depends partially on what protection
864
there is on the tank. Can we at least be assured that the water tanks are adequately and properly covered so that no extraneous material can get into them—unless further drinking water supplies and taps are to be installed in this building?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the Minister replies, and to give him time to reply, can he explain one point in the Statement which was not clear? Was this material, which was accidentally put into the tanks, put in by a contractor or by people employed by the Palace of Westminster? Can the Minister explain—which I do not think he did—where precisely are the taps in this House which are marked "drinking water"? I have been in this House for only 21 years and I cannot recall seeing them, although I am sure they are here.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answer to the multiple supplementary questions of the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness I thank the noble Viscount for explaining the position. I regret that as regards the Norman Shaw South building I have not been able to visit the tank this morning, and therefore I do not know whether or not it is covered.
With regard to the question from the noble Baroness, I know of only one tap in the building marked "drinking water" but that may be because I do not go into every part of the building. That tap is in the Peers' toilets off the Peers' Lobby. Whether there is a tap in the rooms that the noble Baroness is accustomed to using I would not know.
The noble Baroness also asked who was responsible for putting this material into the tanks. When I was preparing to deliver the Statement I asked exactly the same question. It was a direct employee of the Property Services Agency and not a contract employee.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, if this Statement refers only to the Norman Shaw South building, why is it being repeated in this Chamber?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as was explained after Question Time, that is not a matter for me. I was asked to repeat the Statement, and therefore I have done so.
Lord Somers: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the drinking tap in the room off the Peers' Lobby. I have often noticed that tap but it is a curious fact that it is impossible to turn it on. Can the noble Lord say why?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I cannot say why.

Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Interception of Communications Bill
4.28 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 2 [Warrants for interception]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 19, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) for the defence of the realm or to prevent subversion or espionage, and in this context subversion shall mean the attempt or having in contemplation the attempt to overthrow Parliament by unlawful means;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wonder whether I may be permitted to give a brief—and I promise to be brief—preface to it which I I hope not to repeat on any other occasion. It is a preface which I want to introduce only so that I can respectfully say to the Committee what it is that I think it should be rather careful about. It goes back to the history behind this Bill and I only say in regard to that history that for a very long time there was a procedure, not incorporated in any Act of Parliament, under which what we have loosely called telephone tapping took place. That was to secure certain matters which were of importance to the state, and we shall be dealing with those in a moment.
There then came the Malone case. I shall not go into that because we dealt with it on Second Reading, but some of your Lordships may not have had the privilege of hearing that Second Reading debate. The Malone case was brought by an individual who had had his telephone intercepted, as he found when he was the defendant to certain criminal proceedings. His counsel discovered this when he looked at a policeman's notebook. When that gentleman was acquitted of the charge preferred against him he brought proceedings on the basis that the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we are a signatory, had been breached in his case.
He brought those proceedings in our own High Court and they came before Sir Robert Megarry, the Vice-Chancellor—a very distinguished judge, if I may say so—and he found that there had been no breach of English law because we had no Act of Parliament in existence at all to deal with telephone tapping. Therefore the plaintiff, Mr. Malone, had no rights before an English court and he would have to go to the European Court. In the course of his remarks per curiam the learned judge said that that was a matter which in his view cried out for legislation. The matter went before the European Court and it found that we were in breach of the convention in that we had no legislation which laid down and regulated when it was that telephone tapping could take place.
There was a White Paper in 1980 and that was followed by a White Paper in the course of this present year. An amendment was moved to the Telecommunications Bill—one, if I may say so, which I had the privilege of moving from these Benches—which, with the support of all sections of the House, was carried. The noble Viscount, dealing, as one would expect of him, so ably with this Bill, gave an undertaking that the Government would bring
866
forward legislation in view of the amendment which was passed in this House. This is the important legislation with which we are now dealing.
When this matter came before another place there was not enough time—and I say that in all frankness, and it is quite apparent from the Committee and Report stages in another place, if one reads them—to deal with all the matters which I believe that Members of another place would want to deal with or with the debates which occurred on some of the amendments. If noble Lords turn to Hansard in regard to those stages of the Bill when it came before another place, they will find that, on more than one occasion and from more than one part of the House, the hope was expressed that in your Lordships' House attention—and very rapt attention—would be given to some of the amendments that were discussed and may have failed there or could not be adequately discussed at all.
I respectfully say to the Committee that a very heavy onus rests upon us as we deal with this matter, first, because we are dealing with a very vital question affecting an important right, as we regard it, to all our citizens—namely, the right of privacy——as against the obvious right that there must be in the national interest, however regrettable it may be, interception of communications, including those on the telephone. That is the first reason why we have to be careful.
The second reason is that this is the first time that any such legislation has been put upon the statute book or is in the course of being put upon the statute book, and therefore we have to be very careful that we get it right. Thirdly, as I have said, Members of another place placed reliance upon your Lordships' House to deal with this matter with great care, and they said so.
It is against that background and in that spirit that my noble friends and I, in association in many cases with other noble Lords who have put their names to amendments, for which I am deeply grateful, ask the Committee to look at all the amendments, and I start with Amendment No. 4. If one looks at Amendment No. 4, one sees that an attempt has been made to define something. The definition that I have sought to give in this amendment is to what is now called in the Bill in rather vague terms, your Lordships may think, "the interest of national security".
The importance of the amendment is this. Under Clause 2(2) one has very strict rules as to when the Secretary of State can issue a warrant, and so it goes to the very heart of the Bill—the very heart of the matter of the infringement of the right of privacy of the individual. All noble Lords know how obnoxious it can be to have one's telephone calls intercepted.
We are not dealing, if I may say so, again in parenthesis, only with rights which may or may not appertain to people committing treason, acts of terrorism or criminal acts. We are dealing with ourselves, ordinary members of the public as we are, and members of the public outside this House in regard to the very precious right of privacy. One wants to see that there is specific language in any Bill. This is the first Bill, I repeat, of its kind dealing with the

867
question of interception of communications. One finds in Clause 2(2) these words in the Bill as it stands:
"The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this section unless he considers that the warrant is necessary—
(a) in the interests of national security",
and there the Bill stops.
It is left to the Secretary of State to define what he thinks to be "national security". Does he think, for example—and I give a specific example, whatever one's political views may be on this matter—that those who are campaigning for unilateral disarmament are doing something contrary to national security? I am giving that as an example for one very good reason. There have been complaints from those who are in such an organisation that their telephones have been tapped. I speak very frankly, but only personally, from this Dispatch Box. I do not happen to be a member of any such organisation, and I do not happen to support the views of any such organisation. But I support the right of anybody to hold that view, provided that they hold it in a proper way and consistent with our laws and do not in any way breach those laws.
There are other aspects that one can look upon as being in breach of national security or in the interests of national security. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will have a view of foreign policy, but are his views about whether one should have an alliance with country A or country B matters of national security; and do people who hold a contrary view in any way breach national security? All that is capable of debate and argument because the words are vague.
Those who support this amendment have endeavoured to do just that—to look at the Government's own White Paper to see whether within the confines of that White Paper one can find words which will give much more precision in this Bill. One can find helpful words on page 3 of the Government's White Paper, which was presented to Parliament as recently as February 1985. This is what paragraph 4 says:
"The Government believes that the properly controlled interception of communications for certain limited but important purposes is not only justified but essential in the public interest. For example, major criminals"—
we are not dealing with that aspect at all in paragraph (a)—
"or those engaged in subversive, terrorist or espionage activity should not be free to make use of the postal or telecommunications systems to further their activities with immunity from detection".
Thus the Government were thinking of "subversive, terrorist or espionage activity".
Perhaps I may now turn to the amendment, which goes away from the broad, vague words, "national security". One has to think in terms of the interpretation which will be given these words in years ahead, whatever colour the Government may be. If Members of the Committee look at the amendment, they will see that for the words "national security" there have been substituted the words:
"for the defence of the realm"—
that is broad enough—
"or to prevent subversion or espionage".
As those words were drafted, it obviously occurred to the draftsmen of them. If I may say so, I am indebted
868
to many organisations who have been to see me because they regard this Bill as being so important. Not least of them is the organisation called Justice, whose representatives came to see me and who have been responsible for much help in regard to the amendments which, together with other noble Lords in the Committee, I am placing before your Lordships.
In looking at the definition of "subversion", one was immediately tempted to see what it was that our law, our leading statesmen or our leading judges had said when they came across those words. I happen to be looking at this moment at one of the noble and learned Lords who endeavoured, in one case, to define the word "subversion". These words come terribly near to the words that he used in his own definition of subversion. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, well knows, I am referring to him. So that nobody should be in any doubt, in this amendment one endeavours to define even the word "subversion" by saying that it,
"shall mean the attempt or having in contemplation the attempt to overthrow Parliament by unlawful means".
So one has the definition of somebody who is endeavouring, or a group of people who are endeavouring, to upset the whole of our democratic system by attempting or considering the attempt to overthrow Parliament by unlawful means.
In Committee it may be said that somehow or other I have failed in this definition that I have tried to give; that there are some words that are wrong words, or that there are some words that I have omitted. This is the Committee stage. If I am told that in the detail something has gone wrong, obviously my noble friends and I are prepared to see that an amendment comes forward at Report stage, or that the Government put forward some amendment, in the light of what is said in support today.
If I may respectfully say so, what I am trying to do at this Committee stage is to bring home the principle that one cannot leave the bare words "national security" or "in the interests of national security"; one must be more precise. I have tried this in my amendment. If I have succeeded, I hope the Committee will accept this amendment. If I have failed, still I hope that the Committee will accept this amendment on the basis that the principle is right, even though one may have to use other words at a later stage. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Denning: The noble Lord has flattered me by quoting what I said about subversion. "Subversion" is not the word we have to consider. We have to consider here "the interests of national security". Those words are put into this Bill because they are the very words in the European Convention on Human Rights which we are seeking to implement by this Bill. The very words in Article 8 are:
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right [of privacy] except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security".
The convention does not provide any further definition. If the matter came before the European Court of Human Rights, again those would just be the very words to consider. They are used in our own

869
legislation, too. In the Immigration Act of 1971, the words are "in the interests of national security". They are not words with any defined legal meaning. They are words which have to be interpreted by the Secretary of State himself, not by the judges. It is not a legal term.
We had to consider this matter very closely in Mr. Hosenball's case, where the Home Secretary ordered that he should be deported in the national interest. There I ventured to say in my judgment in 1977 that the most important words used by the Home Secretary were that he was deporting Mr. Hosenball "in the interests of national security"; those are the very words which are used and the very words which are used in the Immigration Act of 1971—that a man could be deported, as conducive to the public good, as being in the interest of national security. The court was very careful there not to attempt to define the indefinable because there it is for the Secretary of State to deal with it.
Perhaps I may read the way we concluded the judgment in that case:
"There is a conflict here between the interests of national security on the one hand and the freedom of the individual on the other. The balance between these two is not for a court of law. It is for the Home Secretary. He is the person entrusted by Parliament with the task. In some parts of the world national security has on occasions been used as an excuse for all sorts of infringements of individual liberty. But not in England. Both during the wars and after them, successive ministers have discharged their duties to the complete satisfaction of the people at large.… They have never interfered with the liberty or the freedom of movement of any individual except where it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the state. In this case we are assured that the Home Secretary himself gave it his personal consideration, and I have no reason whatever to doubt the care with which he considered the whole matter. He is answerable to Parliament as to the way he did it and not to the courts here".
The reason behind all this is the fact that the words "in the interests of national security" are not capable of legal or precise definition. The circumstances are infinite in which the national security may be imperilled, not only by spies in espionage but in all sorts of indefinite ways. I venture to think it would be a mistake for the courts or for Parliament to attempt a definition by way of instructing the Home Secretary in a matter which is especially his concern. If I may say so, in that very judgment I venture to quote the words of the Home Secretary in 1971, in which he makes it quite plain that such decisions:
"are … of a political and executive character which should be subject to Parliament and not subject to courts of arbitrators, and so … Whether an individual's presence … is a danger to this country is not a legal decision. It is not a justiciable issue or a matter of law; it is a matter of judgment".
I quote that case because there we have the very words, "in the interests of national security". There, I suggest, it would be wrong to attempt to fetter the Home Secretary, the responsible Minister, on this important matter as to whether a warrant is to be issued in the interests of national security. Let him consider it properly. Let him decide it, and do not let Parliament attempt to fetter his hands by a legal definition. So I would oppose the amendment.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I found myself at the end of it all confused as to the purpose, or at least the end results, of the amendment. The noble Lord talked about the need to substitute
870
other words for "national security". He referred to campaigners for nuclear disarmament who were caught under the national security provisions. But equally, surely, they would be caught if the words "defence of the realm" were substituted for "national security". The noble Lord shakes his head; but it must be a fact that whether or not we have nuclear arms is a matter concerned with the defence of the realm.
Much more important, it seems to me, is the definition of subversion. It is apparently only the overthrow of Parliament. But is it not subversion to incite to mutiny in the armed forces? Is it not subversion to attempt to pervert the police in their duty? Surely this is a definition that is far too narrow and quite impossible to impose.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to make a brief intervention, looking at this from a practical point of view. If the warrant is challenged either in the courts here or in the Court of Human Rights, the affidavit of the Secretary of State would be treated as conclusive. Whether you have the words "national security", as in the clause, the words proposed in the amendment, or any other words that may be proposed, the affidavit of the Secretary of State is still conclusive. It is not understood how there is any assistance to the administration of justice or to the cause of liberty if one seeks to define subversion. At the end of the day it is open to the Secretary of State to consider subversion as related to his concept of national security. The essence of the problem has been advanced already by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The problem is not how to improve the definition proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The difficulty is that one is really seeking to define the indefinable.
Viscount Whitelaw: I should like to say at once that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we have an opportunity to consider in a calm atmosphere some very important matters. The speeches that have already been made show how important it is that we should be able to do just that in regard to some very difficult questions. I should also like to say to the noble Lord that his account, as a preface to the events leading to the introduction of the Bill, was, to my knowledge—and I had some part in that from many different points of view—very correct and very proper.
The noble Lord is also right in saying that some of these amendments to Clause 2 lie at the heart of the Bill. They do, of course. They are the basis on which the warrants that the Secretary of State issues are, in fact, decided. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having raised this question. It was raised and aired in another place, and it would certainly be quite wrong if we did not examine it and have the benefit of the views of many people, including those who have spoken this afternoon.
There are a number of broad considerations that touch upon the amendment. The first is one upon which I laid great stress at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill. It is—I must repeat it—that, through this legislation, the Government seek no extension whatever of the practices that they have followed or of the practices that have been followed by successive Governments of both major parties over a

871
very long period. I appreciate that the noble Lord, in moving the amendment, is in no way disputing that principle, and that he is indeed genuinely seeking to give it a more precise effect by an alternative formulation. It is nonetheless important that I should stress that once again, because the second point follows from it.
The term "in the interests of national security" now contained in the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, clearly pointed out, is precisely the term contained in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not, therefore, something idiosyncratically British that this Government are seeking to use as a cover for the authorisation of interceptions. Indeed, the Government have made a point of adhering to the approach of that article of the European Convention in all the criteria set out in the clause. Surely, the Government would have been very unwise not to have done so. It was precisely to meet some of the problems that we had with that convention that we are discussing this Bill and the reasons for bringing it into effect today. But the matter goes further.
The term "national security" is to be found not only in the European Convention. It is far from being a stranger, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, to your Lordships, who, in one way or another, I am assured—no one will expect that I have checked this myself, but I am certainly assured of it—have agreed to its inclusion in some 50 Acts of Parliament over the years. These have not just been Acts of Parliament introduced by Conservative Governments. The Employment Protection Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act of the following year are examples of legislation introduced by the noble Lord's party in which this term was used. It was thought satisfactory on all those occasions.
I understand that this Bill is somewhat different. That is a point that the noble Lord fairly makes. I must, however, ask him whether, in view of the many occasions on which this phrase has been used, we would be wise to depart from it. No Government, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, again remarked, have found it necessary or appropriate in the past to define the term. Important decisions affecting the individual can be taken in the examples I have cited of other legislation. By their nature, decisions concerning matters of national security must be for Ministers, who must form a judgment in the light of all the information available to them about what does and does not raise issues of national security.
But there is something on the side of this Bill which is uniquely different from the position in the case of some of the others I have mentioned. It is that the tribunal has uninhibited access to all the acutely sensitive material available to the Secretary of State. His decisions on the most delicate aspects of national security are open to review and to the possibility of being overturned, just like decisions, for example, on serious crime. This is indeed very different from the situation in an ordinary court, where matters of national security may not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny and where the word of the Minister may well have to be accepted without any examination of
872
the facts behind it. Indeed, in much of the legislation passed under successive Governments a certificate of a Minister is conclusive as to whether an action was necessary in the interests of national security.
There is a further important consideration to which, I fear, I should perhaps say your Lordships will find me returning when we examine later amendments. This is the term "necessary" in Clause 2. It obliges the Secretary of State to ask himself whether a warrant is really necessary for the specified purpose. It governs all the criteria in the clause, including national security. We are not, therefore, considering a situation where any warrant could be issued simply because it might be interesting to obtain the information in question. "Necessary" is a stiff test that must always be passed. It is bound to be among the most important considerations in the mind of the commissioner and of the tribunal.
I think I can say to the noble Lord and to your Lordships that, having operated the system without legislation in the past, I certainly sought to apply a criterion of that sort to all my own personal decisions, as I believe one must in a very difficult situation. But certainly the word "necessary" would perhaps make a Home Secretary think even more carefully, and the fact of the tribunal would also make him think whether his assessment of "necessary" would be satisfactory to the tribunal. Therefore, I suggest that these are very considerable safeguards.
5 p.m.
The Government's concern about the amendment is not based simply on a belief that the present term is satisfactory, although I think that one has to say, and decide, whether anything more satisfactory can be found to put in its place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, thought not. The amendment talks first of the "defence of the realm" and the prevention of "subversion or espionage". These appear to be aimed at the domestic aspects of national security. I think that I am probably right in saying that it has been culled largely from the terms of the public directive of the security service.
There is, of course, a great deal more to preserving the nation's security than safeguarding against subversion and espionage or "defence", in the narrow sense of that word. Indeed, the term "defence of the realm" in this particular context is, as I think my noble friend Lord Maude made clear, of very uncertain effect.
Paragraph 10 of the White Paper published in February stated that:
"Interception is authorised in accordance with the Government's requirements for intelligence in support of the Government's defence and foreign policies when this is necessary in the interests of national security".
This refers to the fact that interception may be necessary to protect our national security at international level by providing secret intelligence in the foreign and defence fields. There can be no doubt that the acquisition of such intelligence may sometimes be essential in the interests of national security. Without it the Government's ability to safeguard the country's vital interests could be undermined in a way which I know is the last thing that the noble Lord would wish.

873
Accordingly, we believe that this amendment would in future deprive the Government of a capacity which successive Governments have thought necessary. I certainly do not mean to put that in any way too baldly, but that is what we believe and it is a consequence which I think I owe it to your Lordships' Committee to state clearly. Noble Lords will not expect me to elaborate on these matters. I think that I have made myself abundantly clear in what I have said so far.
The second limb of the noble Lord's amendment deals with subversion. At Second Reading the noble Lord expressed a preference for the term mentioned in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The noble and learned Lord now suggests that he was in some way being trapped in that he would not wish to import his particular definition into this Bill. However, that is not wholly for me, though from the way in which I am speaking it is clear where my sympathies lie. What I do and should say is that this Government, like their predecessor, have adhered to the formula enunciated in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in 1975 when he was a Minister at the Home Office. That formula was not, as some suggested in another place, an off-the-cuff remark. It reflected a very longstanding practice.
The term "subversion" is used in a variety of contexts, of which interception is only one. The definition enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was most recently used in the Home Office guidelines on the work of the Special Branch. This definition was only very recently examined by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in his evidence to the Select Committee, the definition has stood the test of time. It is narrow enough not to encourage unnecessary inquiries, and broad enough to enable the security of the realm to be adequately protected.
I must emphasise to noble Lords that both elements in this definition have to be met before it can be brought into play. As far as this Bill is concerned, the Government believe that the definition should remain non-statutory. This has the advantage that should circumstances change and should it be considered desirable to modify or qualify the definition in some way, that would be posssible. Naturally, your Lordships would be informed if a different or modified definition were to be applied.
There is one final point to which I should like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords to give the most careful attention. It was a point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The Bill contains no reference to subversion. If in the future a Secretary of State were ever to be faced with an application connected with subversion, he would have to satisfy himself that the warrant was really necessary in the interests of national security. He would need to do that with an eye to the attention that the warrant could be expected to receive from the commissioner and with an eye to any future review of the tribunal. I do not believe that this would in any way be a straightforward matter. The activity in question would have to be of a very substantial kind before it was of the sort which made interception necessary. By including the
874
term "subversion" in the Bill in this way the noble Lord's amendment effectively makes the automatic connection.
It has been suggested to me—and I can see how it would happen—that the end result might be to make it easier for the Secretary of State to issue a warrant in these circumstances rather than to limit the possibilities. The Government are certainly not seeking to make matters easier. They are not seeking any extension of the existing strict criteria.
I think that the Committee would have expected me to cover a good deal of ground in responding to a very important amendment on a very difficult subject. I believe that the Bill has the best definition for many of the reasons which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave far more ably than I could conceivably hope to do. It is a great mistake to have an advocate and then seek to follow him. One simply accepts what the advocate says and wins one's case that way. Anything that I might say could possibly do my advocate's case harm, so I shall be very careful not to do that. I think that he makes a very strong point. Having heard what has been said in the debate, I think that the case has been made out to a very considerable extent for not changing the present term in the Bill, which I repeat is used in the European convention, which we seek to follow in this Bill.
I must also say that I think—I cannot prove it—that acceptance of the amendment might be difficult in the national interest. That could be the case. I hope that I have given the noble Lord something to think about. I do not wish to be totally dogmatic, but I do believe, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, that the difficulties of changing the definition of the "national interest" are probably so great that it is better to live with it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, following upon what the noble Viscount has just said, I understand that one of the learned Justices of Appeal who sits with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, once described himself in the wording of another Act as "a consenting adult in public". Therefore, I echo what the noble Viscount has said in regard to not trying to improve on the advocacy of the noble and learned Lord.
I draw two crumbs—and they are only crumbs—of comfort from what the noble Viscount has said. First, he emphasised the care that would have to be taken under this Bill to see that the appropriate Secretary of State has all the safeguards and the guidelines in front of him before he makes an order to issue a warrant. The noble Viscount used and emphasised the word "necessary". Therefore, when we come to later amendments that deal with what the Secretary of State must consider and must have in his mind, these are considerations which I hope the noble Viscount will again bear in mind.
The other crumb of comfort that I draw is that the speech of the noble Viscount will be upon the record and I am sure will be referred to on many occasions, not only by the Secretary of State when he has to make his decisions, but also by the tribunal and the commissioner when they have to consider their duties under the Bill. That is the second crumb of comfort that I draw.

875
Only because the argument may recur, I will briefly, and I promise that it will be brief, refer to some of the comments that have been made in the discussion on this amendment. First, I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will forgive me but when he tries to plead in aid the wording of one of the European Conventions on Human Rights or one of the conventions prepared by the European Parliament or any of the other matters to which we have to agree as a result of our membership of the EC or as a signatory of a convention, I know that he is among the first to notice that there is a certain lack of precision which we would require in the wording that is employed. Therefore to invoke in aid that this is the wording of the European Convention and therefore we should stick strictly to it is not in accord with some of the speeches that the noble and learned Lord has made and which we have found valuable to us. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, with complete fairness, quoted part of the convention which was appropriate to this clause. He did not quote to the end. I do not blame him for it.
Lord Denning: It is too long.
Lord Mishcon: It may be too long but one sees where it is going if one follows the wording of the convention. This Committee would never agree to the following words because after talking about national security—I shall deal with economic well-being in a moment—the convention goes on to say:
"for the protection of health or morals",
as being a perfectly legitimate ground for there being intervention in a telephone communication. I suspect that your Lordships would feel that whether health or morals were being interfered with was rather a subjective matter. It then goes on:
"for the protection of the rights and freedom of others".
Your Lordships would never have agreed that that would be an exception to the right, but it is all in paragraph 2 of Article 8, a paragraph that the noble and learned Lord thought contained precious language to which we ought to adhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, always makes contributions of great use. On this occasion I think he was making one of his rare errors because he referred to the fact that if a warrant of this kind were issued by the Secretary of State and it was challenged in the courts, all that would have to happen would be the production of an affidavit from the Secretary of State to say that it was a question of national security or some such expression, and that would be the end of the matter. As I understand the Bill, there is no right to go to a court of law at all. Therefore, if I may say so with respect, I do not think his intervention in that connection was appropriate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, there is no specific right, but the right which always exists to go to the Divisional Court by way of judicial review remains under this Bill. It was in that context of the right to challenge any administrative act that, if an act were challenged or the issue of the warrant were challenged in the Divisional Court, the certificate would be conclusive.
Lord Mishcon: I shall not continue the debate with the noble Lord, although I always enjoy having discussions with him whether inside or outside this Chamber. I think he may find that he is wrong and that there is no right of judicial review in regard to this matter, whether administrative or on a point of law. If I am wrong and the noble Lord proves it to me outside this Chamber, I will make an apology on an appropriate occasion when we are discussing this Bill. But the courts of law are out, which is why the tribunal is given certain powers.
5.15 p.m.
As I said, I draw two crumbs of comfort. I appreciate the intervention which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, and I am grateful to him for his intervention. I could carry on the debate with him, but it would be of no use either to me or to anybody else. What I shall do on this occasion is to reflect upon what has been said and to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage. However, I know that no one will think me unfair if I refer to some of the things that have been said in this debate, especially by the noble Viscount, in support of what I feel to be very important amendments that are to follow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendment No. 5 I should point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 21 to 27.
The noble Lord said: I speedily move to another of the important matters with which we are dealing under Clause 2. Following Clause 2(2)(a), with which we have just been dealing, is Clause 2(2)(c), which reads:
"for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom".
Let me at once say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that these words are used in Article 8 of the convention. These words are qualified in subsection (3), making it clear that all that it is intended to cover is,
"information relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands".
Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed that whereas I was not supported by another name on Amendment No. 4, on this occasion I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, whose definition of national security was so approved of by the noble Viscount. I therefore hope that the obvious esteem that the noble Viscount has for the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich (which he may not have equally for me), is something that I can bring in aid in showing that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has appended his name to this amendment.
Again I come to the questions: first, what is precise; and, secondly, what is advisable? On precision I hope that your Lordships and the noble Viscount will agree that giving the power to issue a warrant for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom is to cover an area so vague and wide that it

877
is not desirable to include it in this Bill. I do not think we are assisted by subsection (3). Before considering the advantage of such a provision I tried to ask at Second Reading whether it was to go abroad that we in Parliament have decided that the authorities can intervene in a communication, whether postal or by telephone, in regard to any communication occurring outside the United Kingdom which we believe is to our economic disadvantage. I tried to give an example at Second Reading. Indeed, I believe the example occurred to me while I was on my feet, but in the interval I have been unable to improve upon it.
Will your Lordships take it for granted that one of our merchant banks has a customer abroad with whose affairs that bank deals? Will your Lordships assume that from outside the United Kingdom that customer wishes to communicate with his bank either in writing or by telephone to ask whether the bank feels that it is sensible for that customer to buy or to sell a large quantity of sterling—a matter which might undoubtedly affect the economic well-being of this country in the view of the Minister?
Are we really to advertise to the world, and will it do our merchant banks, for example, any good to advertise the tact that if we feel, or if a Minister feels, that such a transaction can affect the economic well-being of this country, a warrant can be issued to intercept the telephone call or to intercept the communication between banker and customer?
It does no good to say, "Surely a Minister would not do that to one of our merchant banks". There are two answers to that. First, the Bill as it stands enables him to do it quite easily if he is satisfied that it might affect the economic well-being of this country. Secondly, whatever we may think about that, I am concerned (and I say so quite frankly) for the goodwill of our merchant banks and for the confidence that ought to be reposed in them by customers abroad. I think that the provision here is one which is bad because of vagueness and bad because of the fact that advantages that might occur through its inclusion are far outweighed by the disadvantages which, in my view, will occur if this provision is left in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: May I say that I have every sympathy with this amendment because the provision is very vague indeed and really is not telling the Secretary of State much as to what he can do. But in my view I am afraid that it comes within the principle that I sought to state in the debate on the last amendment. These are wide words, they are not legal words, and we must trust the Secretary of State to act in the interests of our security and our economic well-being in the right circumstances, and not to abuse it. It is not a matter for lawyers; it is a matter for the supreme authority of the Secretary of State, who ought to take into consideration all the pros and cons of it. Although I sympathise very much with the amendment, for myself I think it would be much better to leave the general discretion of a political nature to the Secretary of State.
Viscount Whitelaw: Once again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for having raised an important matter. I am also grateful to the noble and
878
learned Lord, Lord Denning, for what he has said. I have to say that I find this a much more difficult amendment to speak to, for a wide variety of reasons. I am therefore all the more grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, because I have to rely to some extent on the point which he made. In what I have to say it will be very important that I do not say anything which could be interpreted in any way as being harmful to the national interest. I know that the noble Lord and the Committee will understand. It is therefore very important that I confine myself very carefully over this, for I am afraid that this is one of the areas where I must do so.
There are two considerations which bear on this amendment. The first, to which I referred at Second Reading, is that the Bill as drafted defines the purposes for which interception may be authorised in a way properly reflecting the manner in which it has been authorised up to now by successive Governments of both major parties over a very long time. Once again I must say that there is nothing in this Bill—and certainly nothing in this provision which the noble Lords' amendment would seek to remove—which gives a power to the Secretary of State which is different from or greater than that which successive Secretaries of State have had in the past.
The Government take the greatest care to limit the use of interception to what is genuinely and importantly in the national interest. I do not believe that the fruits of their experience or of the experience of their predecessors should be lightly disregarded. In substance, therefore, the noble Lord's amendment is obviously addressed to the Bill and also to some extent to our experience over the years. The second general point is that all the grounds set out in Clause 2(2), including the criterion of economic well-being, are also contained in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I take note of what the noble Lord has said about reliance on the Convention on Human Rights. It has become one of those things which happen in debates from time to time. We are all relying on it. Before long, no doubt, somebody will ask me why I have not relied on it, and I shall have to say, if I am honest, that it did not particularly suit me at that moment in time. But at this moment of time I think it does suit me, and therefore I shall refer to it. There are other grounds in that article, such as public safety and the protection of health and morals, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew attention and which are not in the Bill because they cover areas in which the Government do not consider interception appropriate. The noble Lord said, very properly, that Parliament would not have it. I think I have to say to him that neither would the Government. They realise very well that if they tried to have it, Parliament would not. I think in both cases they would be right. The Government would be right not to do it, and Parliament would be right to stop the Government doing it even if they tried.
The criterion of the country's economic well-being is narrower than that in the convention, as I shall explain to your Lordships in a moment. But I think it is important to emphasise that we are not here discussing something outside the ambit of the convention. I am bound to say that this amendment would deprive the Government of the ability to

879
undertake interception for foreign intelligence purposes vital to the protection of the economic wellbeing of this country. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the removal of this provision would have serious and damaging consequences.
First of all, it must be emphasised that this provision is not directed against business people or trade unionists lawfully going about their business. It is concerned with the interception that is necessary for the effective protection of the country's economic interests at the international level. It is an important part of our foreign policy to protect the country from adverse developments overseas which may not necessarily affect our national security so directly as to justify interception on that ground but which may have damaging consequences for our economic well-being. I am sure that noble Lords will understand if I cannot give specific examples, even hypothetical ones. I am strongly advised that to do so in an area as sensitive as this would in itself be damaging. I have no doubt that your Lordships can readily imagine examples of vague external threats to our economy. If I refer in a general way to a threat to the supply from abroad of a commodity on which our economy is particularly dependent, then I hope that your Lordships will accept that I have gone, I hope, as far as I can by way of offering an example.
I can, I hope, give a better idea of what is proposed by setting out the various limitations which the terms of the Bill will place upon interception undertaken for the purpose of protecting the country's economic well-being. The first requirement is that one that I have mentioned before: that the warrant must be necessary. That is a requirement imposed upon all warrants and is a weighty test. As I have mentioned before, it is very different from "expedient" or "desirable". It requires the Secretary of State to consider whether the warrant itself is necessary, given both the value of the information and the opportunities for obtaining it in other ways. Under the clause the purpose of a warrant in this context must be to protect the economy from some threat to its well-being. It is the threat that gives rise to the interception. It is also the economic well-being of the United Kingdom which is at issue. The matter in question must be one of national significance. It cannot be a trivial matter which is peripheral to the nation's economic well-being.
Finally, we are concerned with the protection of the economy at international level. This is a vital aspect. The purposes of the interception must be purely external. It is in this respect in particular that the provision in the Bill is narrower than its counterpart in the European Convention, which has no requirement of externality. A warrant could be issued only to obtain information about the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands; that is to say, the United Kingdom, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, which islands are therefore accorded the same protection as the United Kingdom proper for this purpose. Purely domestic developments cannot in any circumstance give rise to interception on the grounds that they affect the well-being of the economy.
880
5.30 p.m.
I believe that these restrictions are all material to the matters which we have discussed and which were raised by the noble Lord on this amendment. They are of course directly relevant to the functions of both the tribunal and the commissioner. The tribunal will be able to review decisions taken by the Secretary of State and will have particular regard to the tests of necessity and externality, to take but two examples; and the commissioner in conducting his free-ranging review of the whole system will of course equally have regard to these provisions in satisfying himself that the Secretary of State's powers are being properly exercised.
It is thus no more the case with this position than with any other that the Secretary of State is acting on his own. He will not be the final arbiter here in matters of law or of practice any more than in respect of other aspects of the statutory scheme. I realise that this is a difficult area, but from what I have said, by the indications that I have given, and by the emphasis I have put on the externality of the proposal I hope the noble Lord will see that I have made a strong case in what I accept is a difficult and very sensitive area. I hope that he will consider these answers carefully. I hope he will not feel that he has to press his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I am very sensitive to the remarks that were made by the noble Viscount as to the responsibility which he bears and the difficulty in going into more detail than he has done. I in no way want to upset that sensitivity, because with the responsibility that I hope we always feel from this Front Bench it would be wrong of me to do so, in view of the words that he has used.
I think that the proper course for me is to study very carefully what the noble Viscount has said. I hope that in the meantime he will forgive me if I ask that he, too, considers some of the anxieties that he knows exist in regard to this provision in an Act of Parliament giving these very substantial rights under a warrant. I also hope that the Government may feel upon reflection that there are some more safeguards that can be put in here, some more definite wording, in view, indeed, of the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that he would normally support an amendment of this kind because of the vagueness of the provision but that on the grounds of the considerations he put forward he did not intend to do so. I hope that with that mutual goodwill in regard to a sensitive matter of this kind the Committee will give me leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) A warrant shall not be issued unless—

(a) no other method of investigation is available, or all other methods have failed or are impracticable; and

(b) in the case of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), there are reasonable grounds for believing that an interception is likely to lead to an arrest and conviction.").

The noble Lord said: This is the time when I invoke the words that have been used by the noble Viscount in regard to the two amendments which I have asked the Committee's leave to withdraw at this stage. I am

881
paraphrasing the noble Viscount and I hope he will think that I do it fairly. When dealing with the other amendments he made it extremely clear that the Bill that we were considering made it very clear indeed that the Secretary of State had to find that certain things were necessary before a warrant could be issued, and here they were in the Bill.
There are two reasons why that principle should be carried out in practice. First, there ought to be a proper description in the Bill of the considerations which the Secretary of State ought to have in mind. Secondly, this will be—and I understand it perfectly well—a tribunal which will meet with a great degree of secrecy and which will not have to divulge the evidence that they have before them or the sources of their information. It is absolutely essential, the Committee may feel, that the tribunal know what Parliament expects them to do when they are carrying out the important duty—and they alone will be left with it—of seeing whether or not the Secretary of State was, if I may use shorthand English, right to issue the warrant. In this amendment I have imported not one word of my own; and I imagine that will be the view of those who have been good enough to associate themselves with this amendment. I have intentionally used the words, almost without alteration, of the Government's own White Paper when dealing with what the Secretary of State ought to have in mind by way of guidelines and conditions before the warrant is issued.
Perhaps I may bear out what I have just said by taking each one of the limbs of this amendment. It states:
"A warrant shall not be issued unless—
(a) no other method of investigation is available"—
I stop there and refer your Lordships to page 3 of the Government White Paper of February 1985:
"If normal methods of investigation are not available, it is right that means should exist to obtain information about such activities through the interception of communications, so long as this is carried out under clear safeguards and strict controls".
The Government say that is what is done by way of common practice whatever Government have been in power. The Government say that is what the Secretary of State ought to have in mind: that normal methods of investigation are not available. That, therefore, is the first limb of what must be put in a Bill and not left in a White Paper which, as your Lordships will realise, is no part of legislation.
I now turn to the second limb of the amendment in paragraph (a):
"or all other methods have failed or are impracticable"—
There I refer to page 8 of exactly the same White Paper. I quote from paragraph 19:
"As is stated in the 1980 White Paper, the Secretary of State will need to satisfy himself that other methods of investigation have been tried and failed or must, from the nature of things, be unlikely to succeed if tried".
I hope your Lordships will think that the words that are used in this amendment—
"or all other methods have failed or are impracticable".—
are a proper summary.
With regard to paragraph (b), which deals with the question of the prevention or the investigation of serious crime, I refer to page 9 of the same White Paper and to paragraph 20 which reads as follows:
882
"There will also have to be good reason to think that an interception would be likely to lead to an arrest and a conviction".
I have used those precise words in paragraph (b).
"in the case of paragraph (b) of subsection (2)"—
I have said in regard to the Bill, in dealing with serious crimes—
"there are reasonable grounds for believing that an interception is likely to lead to an arrest and conviction".
In summary, may I say this. These are the words of the White Paper: what the Government say is done, and indeed should be done in the future. There must be guidance in the Bill not only for the Secretary of State but for the tribunal as well in order to know whether, if I may put it this way, the proper rules have been carried out. I beg to move.
Lord Foot: I enjoy one very special advantage in the Committee on this occasion: if your Lordships care to look down the Marshalled List you will see that wherever my name appears it is immediately under that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The result is that throughout the rest of this debate whenever he speaks I shall be merely following in his footsteps. That is an advantage in one way but a disadvantage in another because the noble Lord always covers the matter so eloquently and so fully that there is nothing left for me to say when he has finished. I have been trying to dredge up something new beyond that which the noble Lord has been saying.
Of course it is perfectly true, as he has explained, that these words are those which are used by the Government in their own White Paper, and if there is any criticism to be made of them it would be that perhaps they are a little woolly and a little uncertain. However, that may not be a disadvantage. If the Secretary of State is contemplating issuing a warrant he will look first of all to the terms of subsection (2) as it stands, and he will then be required by the terms of this amendment to go on and consider the matters which are set out in the amendment.
Is it not a very good thing that this warning, so to speak, should be issued to the Secretary of State that he should not take the easy way out? It is perhaps all too easy for the Secretary of State, when he has to make these difficult decisions, to say, "Let's intercept: we can probably do best by doing that, although there may be other ways of pursuing the matter". I think that is a temptation to which, if I may say so, the Secretary of State ought not to be exposed. In addition, the Commissioner under this Bill is given certain powers which are set out in Clause 8. The words which begin that clause are these:
The Prime Minister shall appoint a person who holds or has held a high judicial office (in this section referred to as 'the Commissioner') to carry out the following functions, namely—
(a)to keep under review the carrying out by the Secretary of State of the functions conferred on him by sections 2 to 5 above…"
Therefore it is a specific duty of the independent commission to review every case in which the Secretary of State has seen fit to issue a warrant and to satisfy himself that that has all been done properly. Furthermore, when it reaches the tribunal, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was saying, they too are in duty bound to review decisions of the Secretary of State which are brought to their attention, to consider

883
all those cases where a warrant has been issued on his authority and to decide whether the action which he took fell clearly within the limitations which the Bill imposes.
If they find that the Secretary of State has not in their opinion exercised his powers properly, they are obliged to make a report to that effect and to tell the person aggrieved that that is what their finding is. Thus, on all counts, I very much hope that this amendment will receive the approval of your Lordships. It strengthens the Bill, I believe—that is, it makes clear the limitations upon the Secretary of State's powers.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My noble friend Lord Foot referred to following the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Perhaps I might refer to following the steps of my noble friend Lord Foot. I do so entirely in an atmosphere of friendship towards both my noble friends. However, I am a little worried about this amendment—and perhaps they could help me about it—as to whether, in the circumstances of reality, it is not a little too restrictive. In this matter of interception, obviously the Secretary of State will be acting from time to time on information received from some member of the public. For instance, someone might say they were in great fear that below them in a block of flats there was activity by persons who appeared, for instance, to be speaking in Irish accents. The person may say to the Secretary of State that they were convinced, from certain conversations that they had heard, that these people were dealing with explosive substances. However, there might be no positive evidence to support those fears and it might be that, on that basis, it would merely be irresponsible not to set on foot an interception to see whether the information was in fact well founded or not. An interception might well result in clearing the matter up forthwith, and might reveal that what in fact these people were dealing with was not open and above board but had nothing whatever to do with explosives.
It would be rather ridiculous—would it not?—to have to post a number of police officers from Special Branch to hide around the house and keep observation for weeks on end in order to see whether there was any foundation to the report when an interception would clear it up in a matter of moments. Equally, it would be impossible to say before setting up the interception that there really were reasonable grounds for believing that the information was likely to lead to an arrest and a conviction. It is only that which worries me about this, because basically I would be very much in sympathy with both my noble friends.
Lord Denning; I am afraid that I would oppose this amendment, too. Really, the essential words in this statute are:
"The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant … unless he considers that the warrant is necessary".
Those are the important words. It is not necessary, if there is equally available another means of investigation or on the other hand if it will not do any good. The crucial word in the statute is the word "necessary". As I said once before: rely on the
884
Secretary of State. I would agree entirely that provisions of this kind could go well into guidelines which the Secretary of State would consider when he was coming to his decision as to whether interception was necessary or not. Let them be guidelines, as indeed in the White Paper; but let them not be put into a statute of compelling force because then it ties the hands of the Secretary of State far too much.
Is not the position this? The matter can be inquired into if there is any debate before the tribunal and if the tribunal considered that the Secretary of State had issued a warrant when it is not necessary, then they would quash the warrant and give compensation accordingly. It is for the tribunal to consider afterwards whether it was necessary or not; and I would suggest it is not right for the statute to tie the Secretary of State's hands on what is essentially a matter for his discretion as to whether or not it is necessary. Therefore, I oppose the amendment; but let it be guidelines, if you like.
Viscount Whitelaw: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have raised an important matter, somewhat away from what we have been discussing previously, concerning the basis on which the warrants are issued and how we define the very important word "necessary", or whether we qualify it in any way at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, began, quite rightly, by pinning me down on the phrase and my reliance so often on the word "necessary". I do not therefore think I need go over that ground again. I stand by it absolutely. As I shall come to show him before I have finished, I am entitled, and will put myself in the position, if that is right, of being entitled to rely very firmly on this word, which I think is important.
One then comes, of course, to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, quite rightly said is the position of the tribunal, and of course of the commissioner, which will have to judge the decisions of the Secretary of State on the basis of what is put in the Bill. On the other hand, I have to look to the point that what is being suggested in the amendment is absolutely in line with the Government's own White Paper. Again, that is something which I clearly must have in mind. I have in mind, therefore, what both the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Foot, said. I think there is a problem, and a fairly major problem, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, of translating the criteria employed in the White Paper into a statutory form which is capable of bearing the weight that such words would have to bear at the very heart of the legislation.
I think, perhaps, it would be right—I want to follow some things that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, also said—if I gave some illustrations in the context of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It requires that a warrant should not be issued unless no other method of investigation is available, or all other methods have failed or are impracticable. I think the word "impracticable" is a very difficult word, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, indicated. In the case of a serious crime, for example, it might be possible, through painstaking detective work and given enough time to obtain information, but risks of discovery in adopting this path might be pretty high. The adverse consequences of the suspect discovering that he was

885
under investigation would, of course, be extremely serious. That is a danger and it would be irresponsible of a Secretary of State to take those risks.
Yet it is not at all clear that this alternative method, which would run these risks, would, in fact, be impracticable. It probably would be practicable. But at the same time it might actually be wrong for the Secretary of State to take the decision in that way. There are other considerations. For example, it must be clear beyond any doubt that full account can be taken of the need for urgency, which must be of the essence when it comes to preventing terrorist outrages and, indeed, other serious crimes. I can only say, without going into any detail, which would of course be quite wrong, that all my experience over four years of moments when I had to be got hold of over the question of warrants and of the speed with which they had to be considered has shown that there are many cases when speed is absolutely of the essence and that speed has actually been the basis of considerable success in many cases. It would be fatal to lose that particular requirement.
I have offered, in these examples to your Lordships, to underline the genuine difficulty which I think there is in introducing a provision which will work satisfactorily. I do not think the formula of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as it stands, would actually work. Nevertheless, although I am somewhat daunted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who says he does not think any formula of that sort can be found, I think this is an area where, when I have consulted my colleagues on this matter, we shall feel it would be right to try to see whether it is possible to find a formula which would work and which would meet the various criteria. I do not think it will be an easy task; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, might make us all think, perhaps, that maybe it will be a much more difficult task even than we have thought.
But I have felt it right, because the noble Lord put down the amendment and because it has been supported and argued, to see whether we could do this. It is, after all, founded on what is in the Government's own White Paper. In the end, it may be we shall find it is better to have it in guidance rather than actually on the face of the Bill, but I do not think that that should absolve us in the Government from trying it. Therefore, I should like to give to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a reassurance that we will seek to make a genuine attempt to meet the spirit of the particular amendment that he put down and the comments that have been made. We will try our best to do so.
If we find that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is right and that we are wrong and cannot do it effectively, I will come back, honestly, to your Lordships and say so at the next stage of the Bill. But I should like to give the assurance in this particular case that, if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment on that very clear understanding, we will do our best, although I cannot guarantee that we shall be successful. I can guarantee that if we cannot be successful, I will explain why I believe we have not been able to do what the noble Lords have asked, or something like it.
Lord Mishcon: I think the noble Viscount has been very gracious in his reply to this debate. I hope he will
886
not be in the slightest degree deterred by the fears of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, about introducing anything into this Bill by way of an enactment as against the introduction of guidelines. Your Lordships will be familiar with previous arguments that have taken place with regard to guidelines in which the noble and learned Lord, if I remember rightly, participated. Sometimes, he said, guidelines were all right, and sometimes guidelines were not sufficient and it ought to be in the Act.
Lord Denning: It all depends.
Lord Mischcon: I hope that, after reading this debate and giving further consideration to it, the noble and learned Lord will think that this is one case which really justifies some sort of provision in an Act of Parliament.
Possibly, very quickly, I ought to answer the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. As I see it, first, if it were a case of the Irish accents that he was talking about, it would of course, be a question of national security. If it were not a case of a threat to national security but a serious crime, all that the Secretary of State is required to do is to satisfy himself, which he has to do, on the evidence then before him, that if that evidence were correct, there were reasonable grounds for thinking that a charge would follow and a conviction, and it would have to be, from his point of view, purely on the prima facie evidence that he had before him.
Having said all that, I very much appreciate the reaction of the noble Viscount. I would merely ask whether he can give an indication before Report stage of which way the Government were jumping—if I may put it that way. That would help me, and I have no doubt noble friends of mine who feel this way, as well as Members opposite, whom I also regard as my noble friends, in connection with any action that they may have to take. In these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) The warrant shall name a person as being the person responsible for the supervision of the execution of the warrant and shall state the purpose for which it has been issued with sufficient particularity.
( ) The warrant shall state the persons or classes of persons to whom material intercepted pursuant thereto or copies thereof may be transmitted.").
The noble Lord said: I apologise for this repetitive voice of which your Lordships in Committee must be heartily tired, but I have a certain duty to perform and I hope I am doing it to the best of my ability. In regard to Amendment No. 7, I think I can be very brief indeed. It is obviously right that the warrant should contain sufficient particulars and that these should be enumerated in the Bill, without, of course, going to the point of absurdity.
The first thing one ought to know from the face of the warrant, so that anybody seeing it can identify the matter, and indeed the tribunal can have it before it when a warrant is referred to it or to the commissioner, is the name of the person responsible for the supervision of the execution of the warrant. I am not,

887
of course, saying it must be the person who the whole time has to deal with the warrant, but merely the person who is supervising the execution of the warrant. It ought obviously also to state, with sufficient particularity, the purpose for which it has been issued; in other words, whether it is the detection of serious crime, a question of national security, or whatever.
Then obviously for the proper guidance and in order to see that nothing goes wrong the warrant should state:
"the persons or classes of persons to whom material intercepted pursuant thereto or copies thereof may be transmitted"
under the warrant, and the Secretary of State ought to say, "You can distribute copies of whatever you intercept to the following people". Then there should be nothing going wrong with what eventually happens to copies of what may be very important private documents. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I should like, for once, to support my noble friend and to support this amendment.
6 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: I think that I can explain to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, some of the problems involved in this amendment. Of course, it goes again to the heart of the exercise of the warrant system and it is therefore extremely important. I think I shall be able, though I am not sure, to convince your Lordships that the amendment as suggested would have some undesirable consequences. If I take a little time to explain these, it is only because I am seeking to make clear why something that sounds on the face of it so reasonable and sensible may be either not necessary or not really desirable.
First, there is the proposal in subsection (4A) of the amendment that the warrant should name a person as being the person responsible for supervising its execution. Here I think I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the purpose which he seeks to achieve is in fact already met by Clause 2(1) as it stands. Your Lordships will note that Clause 2(1) enables the Secretary of State to:
"issue a warrant requiring the person to whom it is addressed to intercept,"
etc. Thus the warrant must be addressed to a given person and, since that person is required by the warrant to execute it, there can be no doubt that the person concerned is indeed, as the noble Lord's amendment puts it,
"responsible for the supervision of the execution of the warrant".
The second main element of the noble Lord's amendment is also found in subsection (4A) and that is the proposal that the warrant should state the purpose for which it is issued. There can be no doubt that the Secretary of State must have clearly in his mind the purpose for which the warrant is being issued, and that that purpose, and the reasons why the warrant was considered necessary in the terms of the Bill, must be clearly recorded so that they are clearly documented for the review by the Commissioner and, as the case may be, by the tribunal. If this were not done, the Secretary of State would be immediately
888
vulnerable to criticism from the commissioner and adverse findings from the tribunal. The only question is therefore whether the warrant is the right place to record the purpose for which it was issued, and I hope to be able to persuade your Lordships that it is not.
We must bear in mind that, as I have already reminded your Lordships, the warrant is addressed to the person who is responsible for executing it. When a warrant is issued to British Telecom or the Post Office, all they need to know in order to execute it is the address of the person whose communications are to be intercepted and the identity of the person to whom they must disclose the intercepted material. The purpose for which the warrant was issued is largely irrelevant to the performance of these functions, and given the need, which I am sure your Lordships accept, for a proper degree of secrecy in matters to do with interception, it would be undesirable in principle for there to be a requirement for anyone involved in the interception arrangements to be given more information than he required to carry out his particular duties. This is no more than sound security practice. We must also ask ourselves whether it is right, from the point of view of the person whose communications are being intercepted, for people who do not need to know to be told that he is, for example, suspected of being a spy, on the one hand, or a bank robber on the other.
Finally, I come to the point raised in subsection (4B) of the amendment; that is, the proposed requirement for the warrant to state to whom the intercepted material may be transmitted. I must say that I fear that this amendment would introduce unnecessary complication into warrants, and would cut across the very clear requirements already found in Clauses 2 and 6 of the Bill as regards the handling and disclosure of intercepted material. The amendment appears to be based on the premise that, at the time a warrant is issued, it is possible to foresee all the persons or classes of persons to whom the intercepted material may need to be disclosed; or at least that if material has to be disclosed to someone not initially thought of, the warrant could be readily modified to include a new category of recipients of the material.
However, in reality things are not by any means as easy as that. An anti-terrorist interception may, for example, have been granted on the application of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate, as Clause 2 already provides, for the warrant to specify the commissioner as the recipient of the intercepted material. But what if, as is highly likely, the interception provides intelligence of possible terrorist attacks outside the metropolis—in other force areas or even in another country? Surely then the commissioner must be able to relay the information to the local force so that they can take the necessary action.
I remind your Lordships that we have already adopted a broad definition of what intercepted material and copies of it consist of so that under the noble Lord's amendment even an oral summary of the intercepted material could not be passed onto another force, unless that force was issued in the warrant, or the Commissioner went to the Home Office and asked for the warrant to be modified. I am sure your Lordships can easily imagine cases of such extreme

889
urgency that reliance on such a procedure would be highly dangerous, even if it were at all practicable. And what of the cryptic message whose significance is fully understood only after the warrant has expired, when there would be no opportunity to modify it to include new recipients of the intercepted material? It must be clear that, if this amendment were to be accepted, the temptation would be to name so many people as potential recipients, just in case such a situation as I have described arose, that the procedure would have no value and might even be counterproductive as a way of controlling and limiting the dissemination of intercepted material.
The Government believe that the right and effective way to proceed is through the strict application of the safeguards established in Clause 6, which requires adequate arrangements to be in place whenever the Secretary of State signs a warrant, and these can be either standing arrangements or ad hoc arrangements to suit the particular circumstances. I remind your Lordships that these arrangements will be subject to continuing scrutiny by the Commissioner. This will ensure that intercepted material is disclosed only to the minimum extent necessary for the purposes set out in Clause 2. I feel that this amendment would make more difficult the exercise of warrants. I have to say from my own experience in the past, though not operating under legislation, that I believe this would be so, and I would be wrong not to tell your Lordships of my own personal experience in the matter.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will study what I have said in a rather complicated area and will not seek to press his amendment now. I cannot offer any real hope, but I would quite understand if, after having looked at what I have said, he decided that he wanted to come back to the matter. I have put forward what is a rather complicated case and I think it would be better if it were studied very carefully. I hope that the noble Lord will proceed on that basis.
Lord Mishcon: Will the noble Viscount make me one promise; that is, that in the same way that he appears to have ignored the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when he supported me, he will give consideration to ignoring him equally when he opposes me? Against that promise, I certainly intend to have a very close look at what the noble Viscount has said, to consider it very carefully and to see whether something, by way of an alternative or whatever it may be, should be brought forward at a later stage of the Bill. But at the present moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Issue and duration of warrants]:
Viscount Whitelaw Viscount Whitelaw moved Amendment No. 8:
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

890

(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 (a)(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.").

The noble Viscount said: It has been emphasised throughout proceedings on the Bill that the Government were not seeking through the introduction of legislation to broaden the scope of existing practices. The Bill allows warrants to run for six months. It has been the intention of Ministers who will exercise the powers under the Bill to make use of the possibility of renewing a warrant at any moment within that period in order that none should run for longer than they do now. The Government, however, took note of the view that there was too great a discretion on this point. Accordingly, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office in another place undertook to incorporate in an appropriate way in the Bill the arrangements for duration set out in the 1980 White Paper. This undertaking met with general acceptance and the amendment now before your Lordships' Committee gives effect to it.
The amendment substitutes a new meaning for the term "relevant period" in Clause 4(6). It has this effect. On first issue all warrants will have a validity of two months. Thereafter a warrant for which the criterion is the prevention or detection of serious crime may be renewed only for one month at a time. If one of the other grounds set out in Clause 2—namely, national security or the economic well-being of the United Kingdom—is a criterion for a warrant, then on renewal it may last for six months.
The amendment also deals specifically with those warrants which have been issued in an urgent case over the signature of a senior official following the specific decision of the Secretary of State. Such warrants will have a validity of only two working days. Their renewal within that period by the Secretary of State, which is necessary if they are to continue in force, will confer validity of two months, as will a warrant when first issued over the Secretary of State's own hand. For any subsequent renewals the one or six months' condition will apply in the normal way.
The renewal will be effective only if it is over the signature of the Secretary of State. There can be no delegation, and because the circumstances are different there is no need for an urgency procedure. The Secretary of State has to address himself to exactly the same factors in considering a renewal as he does when originally issuing a warrant. The test is no different or easier.
Two other provisions bear on the duration of a warrant. First, the Secretary of State must cancel a warrant if he considers it is no longer necessary on the grounds set out in Clause 2. Secondly, he may renew

891
it at any time during the course of its validity. He can thus have it brought forward for renewal whenever he thinks it is appropriate. These factors are important aspects of the question of duration.
I think it was generally accepted in another place that this is a useful provision to which we are giving effect. I am glad to commend this amendment and invite your Lordships to agree to it.
Lord Mishcon: As the noble Viscount has said, this amendment is based upon discussions in another place. The amendment is obviously a worthy one and we support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Safeguards]:
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 6, after ("material") insert ("and that any material which proves to be irrelevant to the investigation for the purpose of which the warrant is issued is destroyed forthwith").
The noble Lord said: In spite of the fact that this is an important amendment, it can be very succinctly dealt with, I think. If a warrant happens to have been issued by mistake against the wrong person or address, or it is against the correct person but the material proves to be irrelevant, there is no obligation on the authorities to destroy any of the material copied. As the Bill is at present drafted, the tribunal may order the destruction of copies only if a contravention has been proved. For that I refer to Clause 7(5)(b) of the Bill. This amendment would incorporate into ordinary warrants the same safeguards for certified material under Clause 6(1)(b). I beg to move.
Viscount Whitelaw: I am grateful to the noble Lord who moved his amendment very shortly and very clearly. Perhaps it would be appropriate nevertheless if, in seeking to meet his point, I go through some points of Clause 6 which I think it is proper for me to put on the record.
Clause 6 is concerned with things that happen after communications have been intercepted under a warrant. It is a very different affair from Clauses 2 to 5, which deal with the warrants themselves. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that in every possible respect intercepted material is handled with particular care. I believe it is important that I should demonstrate to your Lordships' Committee that this is the effect.
The key lies in the requirements listed in Clause 6(2). They mean that only relevant portions of intercepted material may be disclosed or copied; that such material as is disclosed may go only to the minimum necessary number of people; that only the minimum necessary number of copies may be made of those portions which are disclosed; and that material may be kept only for the minimum period necessary. The essential point is that these requirements are read together. They impose a comprehensive limitation on what may be done with intercepted material.
892
These limitations are related to the purposes for which warrants may be issued, as spelt out in Clause 2. This is the right approach. The purposes underpin the whole business of authorised interception. It is they which govern whether or not it is right to issue warrants or to renew and modify them. It is against the test of continued relevance of these purposes that the Secretary of State must decide whether or not to cancel a warrant currently in force. The subsequent handling of the intercepted material—the matter dealt with in Clause 6—is rightly based on the same principle.
The arrangements necessary to give effect to these requirements will be detailed and will vary from place to place. The important thing is to ensure that they are always fully consistent with the requirements. This is where the commissioner comes in. He has it among his tasks to review the arrangements made under Clause 6 and if at any time it appears to him that they have proved inadequate in some respect or other, he is obliged—not merely allowed—to report that conclusion to the Prime Minister. It is in this way that the day-to-day implementation of the safeguards will be effectively and independently reviewed. I might remind your Lordships' Committee that in pursuit of his duties the commissioner can go where he wishes and can call for whatever relevant information he wants.
The noble Lord's amendment is particularly concerned with the destruction of irrelevant material. There is of course bound to be irrelevant material. It was accepted as far back as the Birkett Report that the interception of a telephone line was likely to lead to the interception of conversations quite unconnected with the matter in hand. I believe, however, that the Clause 6 requirements deal very adequately with such material. If the intercepted conversations are those of members of the family of the person against whom the warrant is directed or are about things entirely unconnected with his criminal activities, their disclosure, copying or retention might not be necessary for the purposes set out in Clause 2 and they could not be made use of. This is what happens at the moment, as was made clear in the report produced, as monitor of interception arrangements, by Lord Diplock in 1981. This is what will happen under the statutory scheme. If they cannot be disclosed, copied or kept, they must be destroyed.
I do not believe, therefore, that there is any difference of objective between the Government and the noble Lord. There is, however, one aspect of his amendment which I am afraid renders it unacceptable as it stands. He ties his requirement for the destruction of irrelevant material to the "purpose for which the warrant is issued". Let it be supposed that the warrant has been issued in order to prevent a major robbery. What, then would happen if, quite by surprise, one of the intercepted calls revealed that people unconnected with the robbery were shortly to set off a bomb? The amendment would mean that this information had to be destroyed. The noble Lord does not of course intend this, but I fear that I am advised that his amendment would achieve it. The same point would apply if "purpose" meant the relevant Clause 2 criterion: a warrant issued on grounds of national security unexpectedly produces vital and urgent information on a crime, and that information has to be destroyed forthwith.

893
I hope the noble Lord will see, therefore, that his amendment as it stands is not acceptable, even though he and the Government are at one on the need for irrelevant material to be destroyed. The noble Lord has done a most valuable service by highlighting the fact that the clause as it stands does not refer expressly to destruction, although as I have said there is absolutely no doubt that it secures destruction in the appropriate cases. I accept that this is something which could be made clearer, and I am therefore very ready to undertake to bring forward a Government amendment which achieves that end. On this very firm basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel he need not press his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: This noble Lord is indeed very grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has promised to do. On the basis of that promise, I am more than happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [The Tribunal]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 38, leave out ("5") and insert ("6").
The noble Lord said: Again, I can be very brief. With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 and 14.
Amendment No. 12: Page 5, line 41, leave out ("5") and insert ("6").
Amendment No. 14: Page 6, line 18, leave out ("5") and insert ("6").
Under Clause 7 of the Bill the tribunal is given the task of seeing
"whether there is or has been a relevant warrant or a relevant certificate"
and then, in subsection (3)(b),
"where there is or has been such a warrant or certificate, whether there has been an, contravention of sections 2 to 5 above in relation to that warrant or certificate".
There happens to be a very important Clause 6 of the Bill which deals with very material safeguards. Quite obviously, these, too, are matters to which the tribunal should have its attention directed; they should be within the remit of the tribunal. At the present moment they are not within the remit of the tribunal. They should be. I beg to move.
Viscount Whitelaw: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these important matters about the position of the tribunal. He addresses the question of a remit to the tribunal. Though it is clearly for the convenience of your Lordships to consider these amendments together, a number of different issues arise. I should like to examine those dealing with Clause 6 separately from that concerned with reporting the possible commission of a new interception offence.
The Government entirely accept that these arrangements are important. That is why they have gone to such pains to describe them in Clause 6. They must also be the subject of supervision. That is why the remit of the commissioner expressly extends to them. Under Clause 8 he is required (and not merely
894
allowed) to report to the Prime Minister if he concludes that the arrangements made for these purposes are inadequate. He is clearly the person best-equipped to keep an eye on them. The commissioner conducts a continuing review of the whole system of authorised interception, examining what he wishes to examine and having access to any relevant material that he wishes to see. His discretion to go where he likes and see what he likes that is relevant to his task is complete. Through the experience he will build up, he will be supremely well-equipped to decide for himself whether things are working as they should or whether, for example, they ought to be done rather differently in some office, or that a particular decision he has examined in detail was a bad one.
The tribunal has been created to provide a remedy in circumstances where the Secretary of State has taken a wrong decision under the legislation in respect of his warrant powers. It has a precise decision to address. It can receive an application, determine whether there is a relevant warrant and then, if there is, review the decision taken at the time of its issue and any subsequent ones that there may be. Its task, as your Lordships have recognised, is akin to that of a court and it is expressly required by the provisions of Clause 7 to apply the principles applicable on judicial review. There is a direct link between the application to the tribunal, which is what triggers it, and its process of review.
This does not apply in the case of Clause 6. The tribunal has nothing to address as a consequence of its receipt of an application. In effect, all that it would have before it would be the very extensive arrangements to safeguard the material. But these arrangements, as I have said, are given practical effect in a whole variety of different circumstances by a wide range of people. Put simply, the tribunal has nothing to bite on, as it does with Clauses 2 to 5. This is not merely a matter of practical convenience or administrative tidiness. The tribunal is of fundamental importance in providing people with a remedy and in ensuring that the system as a whole is able to command public confidence. If the tribunal is given a task which in practice it could not carry out—as I believe would be the case with these amendments—the result would not be to enhance its role but to detract from it.
I have set out at some length to your Lordships why I believe the provisions for the tribunal set out in the Bill before us are adequate, and why I believe that to extend the remit to Clause 6 would carry with it serious practical disadvantages which would detract from the value of the tribunal, to which the Government attach the utmost importance. I hope once again that the noble Lord will consider what I have said and will return to this point if he wishes to do so. But I am afraid that at the present time I cannot offer to accept his amendments, and I ask him to withdraw them.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: For the very first time the noble Viscount has disappointed me in regard to his reply. I want very briefly to say why I regard this matter as being one of principle. I believe that those who have

895
associated themselves with this amendment may feel the same.
It is perfectly true that the tribunal is given very definite powers and duties under Clause 8. If your Lordships will refer to the order it can make, which is contained in Clause 7(5), your Lordships will see the following:
"An order under this subsection may do one or more of the following, namely—
(a) quash the relevant warrant or the relevant certificate".
I am not pretending that that would be a relevant matter to the amendment I am moving, but paragraph (b) states:
"direct the destruction of copies of the intercepted material or, as the case may be, so much of it as is certified by the relevant certificate".
Paragraph (c) then states:
"direct the Secretary of State to pay to the applicant such sum by way of compensation as may be specified in the order".
The commissioner cannot give any compensation and the commissioner cannot order that there should be a destruction of copies. I ask your Lordships to look at Clause 6 which the noble Viscount says is removed from the remit of the tribunal. Subsection (2) states:
"The requirements of this subsection"—
that is, the requirements as to what the Secretary of State should or must do—
"are satisfied in relation to any intercepted material if each of the following"—
I now skip words in order to make the matter clear—
"is limited to the minimum that is necessary as mentioned in section 2(2) above".
What is limited to the necessary minimum? It is:

"(a) the extent to which the material is disclosed;

(b) the number of persons to whom any of the material is disclosed;

(c) the extent to which the material is copied;

(d) the number of copies made of any of the material; and

(e) the period during which copies of any of the material are kept,"

Let us take a case referred to the tribunal where there has been a warrant. Although the Secretary of State may have been justified in issuing a warrant on the information before him, the tribunal finds, if it is allowed to do so, that he was quite wrong in what he did about the extent to which the material was disclosed; that it had been disclosed to a number of people to whom it should not have been and that the Secretary of State was not careful about that. The party who has complained about the interception has found that, although a warrant was issued, and issued correctly, he was a perfectly innocent party and the Secretary of State has erred in this connection. He has erred in regard to the extent to which the material is copied; or he has erred in regard to the number of copies made of any of the material; or he has erred in regard to the period during which copies of the material are kept.
The tribunal, finding all these things, is then prevented from giving any compensation to the member of the public whose communication has been intercepted in this way. The tribunal is powerless because it is limited to Clauses 2 to 5, and Clause 6 is not within its remit. There will be no compensation from any court because the member of the public cannot go to a court; and there will be no remedy
896
against the commissioner. The commissioner is not entitled to do anything by way of awarding compensation and the tribunal is rendered powerless, although it finds that the safeguards have been negligently or wrongly carried out by the Secretary of State.
I am afraid that this is a principle to which the noble Viscount, unusually for him, did not address himself at all. As he has given no answer to my amendment I am afraid I must press it, unless he can accept it.
Lord Denning: When the amendment was moved I thought that it was unanswerable, but having heard what the noble Viscount said I came to the conclusion that the Government are right because it depends on the jurisdiction of the tribunal. That is given in Clause 7(2). A person who believes that communications have been intercepted improperly, and so forth, may apply. There is no jurisdiction in the tribunal to deal with anything other than the validity of the warrant. At all events, it seems to me that it cannot deal with the various safeguards after copies have been taken. Therefore, although it is a nice point, I go with the Government.
Viscount Whitelaw: I believe I have not done your Lordships as well as I would wish in answering this point. The noble Lord has been very generous to me on other occasions and agreed to take back what I have said to read it; so may I have the same privilege, in reverse, and have the chance to take back this amendment carefully to study what he said? Of course, I would have to do so without commitment.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for his support but I do not believe I have quite managed to capture the real point which the noble Lord has put to me. That is my fault, and certainly not the fault of the noble Lord. Therefore, I am prepared to take responsibility for it and agree carefully to read what he said and come back at a later stage.
Lord Mishcon: On behalf of the profession to which I have the honour to belong, I could wish that the noble Viscount had been a member of it, because he would have been a most distinguished member in view of the gentle advocacy which he has just practised. Obviously it would be discourteous of me to resist it. However, will he permit me, only so that the matter can be properly investigated—because it deserves it—to answer the noble and learned Lord, as he knows I always do most respectfully?
Lord Denning: I made my remarks off the cuff so the noble Lord may answer as he pleases.
Lord Mishcon: It was, if I may say so, off the wrong cuff on this occasion. I say that for this reason. The noble and learned Lord had not noticed that there was also an amendment to which I spoke in regard to Clause 7(3), which reads:
"On such an application … the Tribunal shall investigate".
My amendment would amend paragraph (b) of that subsection to read:
"where there is or has been such a warrant or certificate, whether there has been any contravention of sections 2 to 6 above in relation to that warrant or certificate."

897
Therefore, if my amendment had been carried the tribunal would have been given the job of seeing whether or not the question of distribution, and the rest of it, had been properly carried out by the Secretary of State.
Lord Denning: I thank the noble Lord and I agree.
Lord Mishcon; The noble and learned Lord is always most gracious in the way that he accepts any corrections. The corrections have been rare during his lifetime, although they have been given from time to time by your Lordships' House. Having said that, and in view of the very gracious words of the noble Viscount, it would be wrong of me to press the amendment at this stage. I believe he is seized of the fact that this is an important point to which his earlier remarks were not an answer. In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 39, leave out from ("Tribunal,") to ("an") in line 40, and insert ("sitting as if they were a court dealing with").
The noble Lord said: Here I am going to seek, if that is permissible in your Lordship's Committee, a contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He will correct me if I am wrong and I shall accept it, as I would from the noble Viscount if he proved to my satisfaction that I was wrong. I think the draftsman has made a mistake, and has done so in rather an important matter. I ask your Lordships to refer to Clause 7(4), on page 5, line 39, of the Bill. This states:
"If, on an investigation, the Tribunal, applying the principles applicable on an application for judicial review".
I am imagining the tribunal considering its duties under that from time to time.
No rules of the Supreme Court are referred to. One does not know whether it is supposed to look at those principles, and it is a mandatory matter. It has to apply:
"the principles applicable on an application for judicial review".
Is it a question of some legal precedents that it has to look at as well?
What I believe the draftsman meant to say—otherwise to me as a lawyer the words are absolutely meaningless and may, indeed, vary periodically in view of judicial decisions that are made from time to time—is what has been put in the amendment. The tribunal is to treat itself as:
"sitting as if they were a court dealing with",
a judicial review. I should have thought the matter then becomes clear as to what its duty is. I look anxiously at the noble and learned Lord to find out whether he agrees with me or disagrees. He knows, as I have said, that I shall treat his reply, if he intervenes, with every respect. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I quite agree with the amendment in this way. The tribunal cannot exercise any jurisdiction for judicial review. The position is that the High Court, under our new procedure, can correct any misdoings of any inferior tribunal or other body, even the Secretary of State, if they go wrong in any way.
898
That is for the High Court to do. The tribunal has no power in that respect. It would be much better to put in:
"sitting as if they were a court dealing with",
judicial review, or words to that effect. That brings in the same principles for the tribunal to exercise as the High Court would do if it were exercising jurisdiction over any public authority. I think that the amendment is probably right.
Viscount Whitelaw: Faced with that formidable combination so cleverly brought together by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I think that what I shall seek to do is to explain the position as the Government understand it at the moment. I have to say that we were anxious to discover exactly the purpose behind the amendment. So I should just like to set out why I think that it is difficult for us but at the same time why I realise that the matter has to be carefully considered.
It was argued during the early proceedings on this Bill in another place that the tribunal was not empowered to consider whether on the material available to the Secretary of State his decision to issue a warrant was justified. It was further argued that the tribunal was simply a rubber stamp, concerned only with matters of detailed procedure. It was suggested that, because under Clause 2 the task of the Secretary of State was to consider whether a warrant was necessary on one of the specified grounds, the tribunal had no job to do so long as he did indeed consider that. This would of course have deprived the tribunal of any role, however absurdly or outrageously the Secretary of State might have behaved. The result of this interpretation would clearly have been that there was no effective remedy.
In the White Paper published in February, and at all subsequent stages, the Government have emphasised that they wish the tribunal to be an effective remedy, as indeed is required by the European Convention on Human Rights. It was the clear intention that the tribunal should be able to decide whether an interception was properly authorised, in the sense of whether the material placed before the Secretary of State was such that he could properly have come to the conclusion that it was within the specified criteria. It was also stated that the jurisdiction of the tribunal would be analogous with that of a court hearing an application for judicial review. Though the Government believed this result to be achieved by the Bill as originally introduced, to put the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever it was changed in another place by adding to Clause 7(4) the phrase,
"applying the principles applicable on an application for judicial review".
This made it absolutely clear that the tribunal would decide whether on the facts available the decision to issue a warrant was a proper one in the sense that it was not unreasonable. This is at the heart of the process of judicial review and is what the tribunal should be about.
Against that background I should like to turn to the actual terms of the noble Lord's amendment. He has explained it very clearly and gained the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for that. I am grateful to him for the way he set it out, because, as I said at the start, the Government were not quite sure

899
when we looked at it in the first instance what the noble Lord was seeking to do.
6.45 p.m.
The noble Lord asks us to look on the tribunal,
"as if it were a court"—
the words of the amendment. I must say to him that I do not see how we can. I dwelt at some length during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill on the need for secrecy in relation to the proceedings of the tribunal, as in other respects. I believe there was a general agreement among your Lordships that secrecy of this kind, though exceptional, was absolutely necessary in the special circumstances of interception. It cannot be the case that application to the tribunal, which must be open to anybody without restraint, could lead to discovery of whether or not there is a warrant or the grounds on which it was issued. Hence, there are limitations imposed on the tribunal about the disclosure of information without the agreement of the person from whom it has obtained it, about the terms in which it responds to applicants, save where there has been a contravention of the Act, and about giving reasons for its decisions.
The tribunal may be the alternative to an ordinary court, but it is not like one. In a court the public are normally admitted. Even if the proceedings are in camera nothing said by one party can be hidden from the other. There are detailed rules of procedure established over the years and applicable to the courts, but surely they are irrelevant to a special tribunal of this kind necessarily sitting in secret. I have to say to the noble Lord that I cannot see how a reference to the tribunal sitting as if it were a court would therefore work or is consistent with the other provisions in the Bill about its procedures with which I had hitherto understood him to be content.
I believe that the formula we now have before us in Clause 7(4) works entirely satisfactorily. It says the tribunal must apply the principles of judicial review, and that is what I believe we all want it to do. I fear that as it stands this amendment would confuse and not clarify the role of the tribunal. I hope that I have given some reasons which may perhaps make both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, think again about the precise way in which the tribunal has to work in the circumstances.
Lord Denning: It is all a question of drafting, I think we would agree. As to the objective that I think my noble friend wants to achieve, we want the tribunal to be able to quash, modify or whatever the decision of the Secretary of State. In doing that it can consider whether or not it is reasonable or whether it is in accord with natural justice; in other words, all the ordinary principles which the High Court applies. It is only a matter of wording to see whether we have it right. It may be that the present wording does it—
"on an application for judicial review".
I think that it would be a good thing to look at the actual wording to see whether it achieves the objective. I think that we had better look at it again.
Lord Mishcon: I think that the Court of Appeal has varied the decision which it made a few moments ago, and the Court of Appeal has the power to do that provided that it is at the same sitting.
I say just a word or two only so that we can properly consider what is a very important provision in the Bill because it governs the way in which the tribunal will sit. I say this with all deference, but I think that there is some confusion in the minds of those who may have advised the noble Viscount. In this amendment I am not of course in any way upsetting the idea of the tribunal sitting in camera. I in no way seek to have the right of representation before it in the normal sense. I in no way seek the right of parties to appear before the tribunal in the way that the noble Viscount intimated. That was not my intention at all.
What I was trying to do was this. If I may say so, those advising the noble Viscount have really brought an argument upon their own heads. If they say that my amendment means that if a body sits as a court dealing with an application for judicial review, then one has to have people present and one cannot have the whole hearing in camera. Natural justice would dictate on an application for judicial review that one heard representations and evidence, and so on, so they must be wrong in thinking that the words in the Bill fulfil what they want. That is because if they say that those are the normal principles applicable on an application for judicial review before the courts—namely, that all parties have the right to be heard—they are caught by those very words in the Bill because a tribunal has to apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review. Thus in language that the Committee may be used to in various debates before it, they are, as it were, in an uncomfortable position with their own petard.
Having said that, the sole purpose of my amendment is to achieve clarity. I do not in any way oppose a word that the noble Viscount has said in regard to the procedures to be conducted under the Bill before the tribunal. I am merely saying that the words are meaningless in a statute. They lack particularity. They can vary from day to day. There may be contrary principles expressed in judicial precedents. There is no reference to the Rules of the Supreme Court governing a matter of an application for judicial review. The words,
"applying the principles applicable on an application for judicial review"
are, in my humble submission, words which should not appear in a statute because they are bad drafting, because the tribunal is not certain as to what it is supposed to do.
However, if one tells the tribunal that, subject to all the matters the noble Viscount has spoken of, it is deemed to consider itself to be sitting as a court of judicial review, in the sense that it has to decide what is reasonable in the circumstances, whether the rules of natural justice have been observed, then I think the tribunal will know what one is talking about.
The noble Viscount has spoken very graciously. His way of conducting the Committee stage of this Bill is, if I may say so, an example to us all and I hope will be an example to others who sit on the Front Bench when dealing with other legislation.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: For the first time I have had acclaim for something that I have said in the course of the conduct of this stage of the Bill and I am delighted. However, the noble Viscount has said that this obviously should be considered. The noble and learned Lord has said that it is a question of drafting and one ought to give proper consideration to what has been said. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, upon the understanding, which I think we all have, as to what we want to do in regard to this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) If on an investigation the Tribunal conclude that there was no relevant warrant or certificate and it appears to them that an offence under section 1 above may have been committed, they shall—

(a) give notice to the applicant stating that conclusion; and

(b) make a report to the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: I hope that I can be as brief in regard to this amendment as I hope I have been in regard to the last few amendments. One knows perfectly well that the tribunal has no investigative arm. Therefore it was reasonable for the tribunal not to be given the burden, under this Bill, of seeing whether or not anything had gone wrong in regard to interception, where a warrant had not been issued. For that purpose, it would require an investigative arm. That is a matter normally for the police to investigate.
However, under this Bill as it stands at the moment, where the tribunal happens to find, when investigating a complaint made to it by a member of the public, that an offence under Clause 1 looks as though it has been committed, under this Bill at the present moment it has no duty and indeed no powers. It must be right that where it happens to find that such a thing has occurred, it should give notice to the applicant stating that conclusion; namely, that an offence under Clause 1 may have been committed and that it also should make a report to the Secretary of State. Otherwise, the member of the public, quite wrongly, will never know about this matter, will never be able to put matters before the police because he will not have the facts. The tribunal, by chance it may be, has found out that there has been this contravention. Surely, the member of the public ought to be protected in those circumstances by the tribunal giving notice to the applicant of its conclusion and making a report to the Secretary of State so that the Secretary of State can take action if he sees fit. I beg to move.
Viscount Whitelaw: We looked at one aspect of the tribunal a moment ago on the noble Lord's other three amendments. Perhaps I should say in answer to him, when he kindly withdrew the amendment, that I think I would have replied to him that now at least we all start from understanding what we are all driving at. I am not sure that we did do that, when we started. Thus on the previous amendment I think we have made considerable progress in knowing exactly where we were seeking to go.
902
This amendment addresses a different aspect of that task. I will therefore not detain the Committee by repeating what I said about the purpose and manner of the workings of the tribunal, which I must say I noted from the noble Lord he felt generally in agreement with me about.
This amendment does two main things. First, it places an obligation on the tribunal to inform the applicant if it considers there may have been a Clause 1 offence. If it did have this suspicion, the tribunal would of course behave responsibly, It would have obtained this information only from the applicant since its further inquiries are only directed at the Secretary of State as to whether there is a relevant warrant. It is not therefore inhibited by its terms of reference from reminding the applicant of his right to approach the police in connection with a criminal offence, and indeed of telling him that in its view he would be well advised to do so. A body of the stature and experience of the tribunal does not need to be told what to do in this kind of circumstance.
The amendment, however, goes a good deal further. It requires the tribunal to report its suspicions of an offence to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is a Minister of the Crown. He is not concerned and must not be concerned with the investigation of individual criminal offences. His responsibilities for the criminal law are of a broader kind, relating in the case of the Home Secretary to the adequacy of resources and the nature of the criminal law. It would be quite wrong for the Home Secretary, for example, to receive reports on suspicions about individual offences. His locus in relation to the new interception offences is not in principle different from that in relation to any other offence. He could do nothing with the reports he received from the tribunal. He could not in any way be thought ever to interfere in their proper investigation by the police. And his wider responsibilities are in no way served by what would be no more than occasional information, since material reaching him from the tribunal would at best be spasmodic. If—as might well be the case—he needed a general picture of the commission of the new offence and its enforcement, he would obtain that comprehensively by making a general inquiry of the police service as a whole.
I must point out one other matter. There might be a case where the tribunal had reviewed a warrant and found all in order, but where it was also apparent from the application that there might have simultaneously been an unlawful interception of the same telephone, say by a private detective. The amendment does not meet this situation. Indeed, I do not see how it could do so. The end result in this respect is at least anomalous.
I think therefore that I should sum up the Government's view on the noble Lord's amendments in this way. As to telling the applicant, there is nothing to stop it doing so now if it suspected there had been an offence. I do not believe a group of people of this kind should be obliged to. As to telling the Secretary of State, I think that is wrong, and could lead to just the wrong kind of suspicion about his involvement in the investigation of offences, from which he must at all times be separate, and be seen to be separate. Having lived the life of Home Secretary for four years, I utter

903
those last words with a great deal of very strong conviction indeed. I hope that the noble Lord will take notice of them.
7 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I not only take notice of them: they have registered on my mind with great emphasis. I wonder, however, whether the noble Viscount can help me in this regard. If he can, then I propose to take a certain course, which he can anticipate. I wonder whether he can give an assurance or, if he feels that to be wrong (because I have given him no notice of this), at least to consider favourably the suggestion that guidelines could be given to the tribunal saying that if they find that there has been an apparent contravention then suitable guidance can be given to the applicant. We would not then need necessarily to have it in the statute, because I take some of the things that the noble Viscount said.
What many people are frightened of is that the tribunal, without guidelines and without this provision in the Act, will say that although they can see a contravention of Section 1 no-one, obviously, wants them to do this, and in those circumstances they will not tell the member of the public or give him any guidance. I recognise that this may be unlikely. If, however, the noble Viscount can say that in those circumstances guidelines will be given to the tribunal it is obvious that, in the exercise of their proper discretion, they could well be expected to carry out what I have tried to incorporate in the amendment.
Viscount Whitelaw: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was, of course, addressing myself, I think properly, to the amendment, which involves actually putting something on the face of the Bill. I come back to the remark made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that sometimes guidelines are better than putting something on the face of the Bill. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on that earlier amendment, I promised to seek to put it on the face of the Bill—at that moment, against the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Now the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and myself are I believe coming together in seeking to see whether it would be possible to put guidelines to the tribunal rather than on the face of the Bill. I cannot commit myself. The noble Lord is quite right. I do not know the position. I would have to consult with my colleagues, and of course, that I shall certainly do.
Lord Mishcon: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [The Commissioner]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 19, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) If at any time it appears to the Commissioner that there has been a contravention of sections 2 to 6 above which has not been the subject of a report made by the Tribunal under section 7(4) above he shall refer the matter to the Tribunal for investigation under that section.
904
(5A) If at any time it appears to the Commissioner that any arrangements made for the purposes of section 6 above have proved inadequate he shall make a report to the Prime Minister with respect to those arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: Again, I believe I can move this with some brevity. The present state of the Bill, as I see it, means that the procedures for investigating contraventions are inadequate. The tribunal will only be able to investigate complaints by the public—that will be under Clause 7(2)—and there is no obligation on the commissioner, or indeed on the Prime Minister, to inform the tribunal of contraventions found by the commissioner. The person whose communication has been wrongly intercepted may never know or suspect this. As such contraventions cannot be considered by the ordinary courts, as Clause 9 at present provides, there should obviously be an obligation on the commissioner, we think, to refer all contraventions to the tribunal.
This amendment would ensure that. It would also require the commissioner to have regard to the safeguards in Clause 6 in deciding whether there has been a contravention. At the same time, the commissioner would only report on the adequacy of the safeguards to the Prime Minister, as the Prime Minister will receive reports from the tribunal of its finding of any contraventions. That would be pursuant to Clause 7(4). I beg to move.
Viscount Whitelaw: Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has moved his amendment very succinctly. Nevertheless, it is important, as we come to the various important roles of the tribunal, that I refer to some of the points surrounding the amendment at somewhat greater length. I think, in the circumstances, that it is inevitable that I should do so.
The Bill establishes a clear distinction between the functions of the commissioner and the functions of the tribunal. The commissioner undertakes a continuing review of everything to do with authorised interception, both the actions of the Secretary of State personally and also associated procedures and arrangements whereby applications are made to him, advice is given and action is taken to execute warrants and to secure the material they produce. The commissioner is his own master. He can call for any documents or information relevant to his task, and they must be given to him. He decides where he wants to go and who he wants to see. He thus ranges freely in pursuit of his statutory duties. This freedom of action is vital.
The tribunal is entirely different. It is triggered only by an application. It has precisely defined duties in respect of an application and has specific powers enabling it to overturn the decision of the Secretary of State and to provide an effective remedy if it concludes there has been a contravention. Its process is therefore one of formal investigation—your Lordships will note that that is the word in the Bill—as distinct from one of free-ranging review, as with the commissioner.
If the commissioner finds what he thinks to be a contravention—and that is not to say it is a contravention in the sense that it has been subjected to a formal investigative process and that a conclusion to this effect has been reached by a legally qualified tribunal—he is obliged to report that opinion to the Prime Minister. It is not more than his opinion. The

905
commissioner's annual report will survey everything he has done during the course of the year and will therefore naturally embrace any ad hoc reports that he might have made during the course of the 12 months. Among the issues which he is bound to address in his annual report is the action taken in response to matters he had commented on earlier.
Given the stature and independence of the commissioner as constituted under the Bill, failure by the Government to take appropriate action can be assumed to be a matter which the commissioner would comment on in his annual report. It can be seen from this that there is no possibility of an interception continuing in circumstances where the commissioner thought it was inappropriate. To suggest otherwise would be quite unrealistic. Frankly, no Government would countenance the situation of being publicly reprimanded by the commissioner for failing to act on his advice. It should be noted that there are no grounds for excluding from the published version of his annual report a suitably framed reference to a matter of this kind. The consequence therefore of the commissioner reporting that there had been a contravention, is, it seems to the Government, bound to be that the interception would be immediately discontinued.
It is perfectly natural for your Lordships to assume on first inspection of Clause 8 that where the commissioner has discovered a contravention the tribunal should be able to give a remedy to the person who is the subject of the offending warrant. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The jurisdiction of the tribunal is based on judicial review and it is not for the tribunal to substitute its views for those of the Secretary of State, but rather to see whether he has acted unreasonably. The commissioner will be far more effective if he draws attention to cases where he believes that something has gone wrong with the system. He should be able to report to the Prime Minister cases where the Secretary of State acted properly but where subsequent events have cast doubt on the reliability of the sources of information on which the Secretary of State acted, so that greater accuracy can be achieved in future. He should be able to question the wisdom of the issue of particular warrants without disputing the lawfulness of the Secretary of State's decision. If the necessary consequence of reporting his disquiet about a particular warrant is that the fact that the warrant was issued becomes public knowledge (because through the tribunal the persons involved have to be informed) the commissioner might seek to minimise the damage to the system of interception by limiting his criticism to where he is satisfied that the issue of the warrant was beyond doubt unreasonable.
The acute problems which could arise can be seen by examining a hypothetical example. A warrant could have been properly issued in respect of a terrorist staying in rented accommodation but a blunder could have led to a request to the Secretary of State to renew the warrant after the terrorist had moved out and a perfectly innocent person had moved in. The blunder could have been discovered very shortly afterwards and the warrant cancelled.
The commissioner might well wish to suggest an improvement in the system to avoid similar mistakes, though I must emphasise to your Lordships that I
906
believe the arrangements which already exist can prevent just this kind of thing. If the commissioner is required to notify the tribunal, which in turn notifies the persons concerned, we have two unfortunate results. First, there appears to be a duty to try to notify the terrorist, even though it may make it less likely that he will be caught once he knows that he is under observation. Moreover, the terrorist has to be notified even though in respect of him the original warrant was perfectly satisfactory. Secondly, the new occupant of the flat is in the bewildering position of discovering that he has got caught up in something he cannot understand or discover much about, and that he has a right to a remedy before the tribunal.
There are further practical aspects of these matters which your Lordships will also wish to consider. The amendment requires the commissioner to refer the matter to the tribunal for investigation. It does not go on to say how the tribunal is to proceed when at that stage no one has been identified as specified or described in the warrant, or as residing or working at premises with the address specified in the warrant. Presumably, it is intended—and I have assumed this for the purposes of the hypothetical example I have just given—that the tribunal should discover these persons and inform them so that they can be regarded as applicants for the purposes of Clause 7. But how does it do this? How can it discover who lived or worked at the premises? How can it discover where the person named in the warrant now lives if he has moved? Is it to advertise in the press?—a prospect which I am sure will not commend itself to your Lordships. In asking these questions I am not simply seeking to throw sand in the eye in order to evade the main issue. They are real practical questions which must not only be asked but answered before the notion contained in this amendment can be given real effect, however attractive it may appear on first sight.
I have spent some considerable time on this amendment, but I think it is important for your Lordships' Committee to have some of the background. I do not believe that noble Lords would wish some of the results that I have outlined to come about. The Government certainly do not. I hope that the noble Lord will consider very carefully what I have said because I do not believe that his amendment would give him the result he wants. I fear it might produce some results which he really does not want.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may at once say that there are aspects of this matter, which have been outlined by the noble Viscount, which had not occurred to me at the time I tabled this amendment. I should like to consider them and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Complaints Commissioner
.—(1) The Prime Minister shall appoint a person who holds or who has held a high public office (in this section referred to as the Complaints Commissioner) to carry out the following functions, namely—

(a) to investigate any complaint made to the Complaints Commissioner by a member of the Security Services in

907
respect of an allegation of misconduct or abuse of lawful authority by another member of the Security Services in relation to the interception of communications; and

(b) to decide whether in all the circumstances any such allegation is of such a character and substance as to justify a report by the Complaints Commissioner to the relevant Secretary of State; and if this is the case,

(c) to make as soon as practicable, a report to the relevant Secretary of State with respect to the alleged complaint.

(2) The Complaints Commissioner shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.").
The noble Lord said: For once we come to an amendment not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. His advocacy, supported by the excellent briefs of Justice, has not required any help from these Benches, and we have been unusually silent. However, on this occasion my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich tabled this amendment, which he anticipated in his Second Reading speech, but unfortunately he is under an obligation to be elsewhere and so he asked me to put it forward on his behalf.
It is a follow-up to a suggestion of Sir Edward Gardner's during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. Admitting, as, alas, we all have to, that over the last few years there have been what the noble Viscount described as "some very unfortunate and worrying lapses" in the working of the security services, it seems a pity not to use the opportunity of this Bill to add a safeguard against further incidents of the kind. Sir Edward suggested that there should be an independent complaints commissioner, independent of MI5 and MI6, who could be approached by members of those two organisations if they believed that some improprieties were taking place.
My noble friend quoted the Massiter case, where Miss Massiter, as a working member of the security services, alleged that there had been a deliberate and intentional breach of the Maxwell Fyfe guidelines by fellow members of MI5. We do not know whether or not this was true; we have heard no more about it. But such allegations should be independently investigated.
Some individuals in this dangerous and difficult trade may get carried away into excessive action and, without this amendment, they will tend to fall back on the very unsatisfactory method of leaking to the press. There is no safeguard against this, except their colleagues, as no one else can know what they are doing. We think Sir Edward's suggestion a wise one, and this amendment is an attempt to put it into the Bill. The noble Viscount spoke not unsympathetically about this and I hope that at least he will give this amendment his fullest consideration. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, the amendment before your Lordship's Committee is in identical terms to that proposed by my honourable friend the Member for Fylde in another place. The issue is whether the present arrangements for the management of the security services, and in particular for the expression of concern by its members, are adequate. Associated with it are questions of the role of Ministers as those ultimately responsible for the accountability of the service.
908
The position of the Government has been placed on the record on a number of occasions in the last few months. Particular occasions were the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place in the middle of March and the Statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 9th May about the report of the Security Commission, which I repeated to your Lordships. This Government are of the view that the present system of Ministerial accountability is right and works effectively. They are not of course alone in this view. The same opinion has been shared by successive Governments of both major parties over a very long period. This responsibility is a heavy one for the Minister concerned, as I myself can vouch from my own personal experience over a period of four years. It is a responsibility taken extremely seriously, whereby the Secretary of State satisfies himself that the security service operates not only within the letter of its directive but also within its spirit. Moreover, this is a continuing duty exercised throughout the Minister's term of office in conjunction with his most senior advisers; there is no question at all of this responsibility being discharged with a quick signature on his first day in office. He is kept informed and considers issues throughout that period. The legislation before your Lordships in no way changes this situation, though the Government believe that the proposed statutory scheme will give grounds for added assurance to members of your Lordships' House and to the public at large that interception is used only where it is necessary.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed this position in exchanges following her Statement early last month. She emphasised that all Governments of all parties have run the security service in the same way and on the same lines, believing when in power that that is the best way to do it. It is also relevant in this context, as your Lordships will recognise, that the Security Commission's report on the Bettaney case in no way addressed this wider question, and had no comment upon it.
The second issue raised by this new clause concerns the responsibilities of the management of the security service. I must state very clearly to your Lordships that the Government believe this new clause cuts across managerial responsibility. It is the task of the Director General—as it is the task of the senior management in any organisation—to support and guide the staff in carrying out their functions. In the case of the security service this clearly includes firm direction and clear guidance in relation to the day-to-day implementation of the directive. It is an important part of management's function in any organisation to listen carefully and sympathetically to any member of staff who puts forward reasonable concerns about his work in the proper and responsible manner. Moreover, in discharging his reponsibilities towards the security service, it is the responsibility of the Home Secretary of the day to satisfy himself that in this respect as in all others the system is operating properly and management is discharging its proper functions. There is nothing new about any of this; it is a matter of long-standing practice.
That said, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated in her Statement that the Government appreciated the concern which had been

909
expressed about the handling of members of the service who were troubled over particular matters or activities. I should like to emphasise to your Lordships today that this is not simply a ritual comment; the view has been clearly expressed, and it has been firmly taken on board. Your Lordships will know that the new Director-General of the security service is examining the report of the Security Commission. He will make any necessary changes to improve the organisation and management of the service and will report to the responsible Ministers later in the year. His conclusions and the measures he has taken will be reported to the Security Commission for further comment. In this context, he has been asked to consider and to report on what developments he proposes by way of internal outlets for the expression of grievances or anxieties by individual members.
I believe this demonstrates that the Government are very much alive to the points which have been made in recent public discussion, and which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, put before us. I do not think it follows that we should necessarily accept the approach contained in this new clause. After all the position at the moment is that the new director of the security service has been charged with the task of looking into the management of his service. That he is doing and is reporting it to the Security Commission. My right honourable friend has said she believes that there could be an internal route under a different style of management, but these are all matters which must be considered with the staff concerned. The Government do not feel that the job should be rushed. Nor should we fall into the trap of assuming that this is something necessarily to be dealt with in legislation, let alone in legislation on interception. The noble Lord recognises that it goes much wider than that. I ask the noble Lord to consider whether it is wise to rush to conclusions on proceedings on this Bill and whether it is not wiser to give the new director of the security service a chance to look into the management of the service and to come up with full recommendations of his own when he has made those investigations. That is why I do not feel able to accept this new clause in the context of this Bill.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful for a full reply from the noble Viscount and I shall discuss it with my noble friend who initiated this amendment. My only comment before withdrawing the amendment is that as the new head of the security services is to make intensive enquiries we shall never know what conclusions he will come to which might be rather disappointing. I do not know whether later when he has had time to do that we might ask a question and receive an answer on what he found. Having said that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I think that this might be a convenient moment to break for dinner. Before I resume the House, I suggest that we do not return to this Bill until 8.20 p.m.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hospital Complaints Procedure Bill
Report received.

Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Bill
7.24 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before speaking, I should like to thank the Leader of the House and noble Lords on the opposite side for breaking at this point so that my noble friend can get away for his other engagement this evening.
I have the honour, after 17 years in your Lordships' House, of introducing to you my first Bill, which was so ably taken through all its stages in the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Beaconsfield, Mr. Tim Smith. It is a small, modest measure which will be important to millions of motorists.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the existing laws relating to motorists who are stopped by a police officer and who cannot produce their driving documents on the spot. They have five days to produce them at a nominated police station. This law, my Lords, has been found to be defective for two reasons: first, because the period of five days can sometimes be inconvenient as many people are away from home for a week at a time; and secondly, because it is an absolute offence to which there is no defence in Law. The Bill before us meets these two points by extending the five-day period to seven days and by creating a defence where production of documents is not reasonably practicable within the seven-day period.
The objectives of the Bill have the support of the Department of Transport, the police, the RAC, the Freight Transport Association and all-party support in another place, even though the Bill had a somewhat rough passage on the floor of the House at its last stages.
As your Lordships will see, there is only really one clause which is somewhat long because the existing law contains quite a number of references to the five-day limit. Subsection (2) refers to the medical certificates giving motorists exemption from wearing seat belts. Subsection (3) refers to driving instructors' certificates or licences. Subsection (4) refers to the ordinary driving licence, and subsection (5) to the other documents—that is, the insurance certificate, MOT certificate and a plating certificate or goods vehicle test certificate. In each of these sections of the Road Traffic Act 1972 the same two amendments to the law are made—that is to say, increasing the five days to seven days, and the new defence of a reasonable excuse is created.
Subsections (6) and (7) amend Sections 28 and 35 of the Transport Act 1982. Both provisions are expected to come into force in April 1986 and relate to the scheme that extends the system of fixed penalties to certain road traffic offences. The Bill makes only one amendment to the existing law, increasing the time from five days to seven days.
At the outset I indicated that the RAC supported the objectives in this Bill, and it said in a letter to my honourable friend that the objectives were being

911
pursued by an appeal case, supported by the RAC, which was heard in the High Court on 17th January this year. The RAC in that case was endeavouring to secure the reversal of a decision to convict a driver who failed to produce his driving licence to the police under the existing law because it was at the DVLC, having been sent there by another court after being endorsed with details of the conviction by that other court.
In the transcript of the case Mr. Justice Taylor said—and I summarise—that at the trial the justices took the view that the terms of Section 161(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 were specific and that the offence created by that section was an absolute offence. He went on to say:
"Prior to the establishment of the DVLC there were no problems of the kind which has arisen in this case. However, since the establishment of the DVLC it seems there have been a number of cases similar to that of Spark".
—the defendant in the case. He went on:
"The City of London Police have had an unofficial policy since 1982 not to prosecute, which became their official policy in 1983. There is a Private Member's Bill before Parliament which seeks to remedy the situation under which this offence is committed. It was unfortunate that the officer was not aware of the unofficial policy and brought a prosecution when it would have been more appropriate if [the defendant] had not been prosecuted".
Mr. Justice Taylor ruled that the terms of Section 161 were absolute and the defendant lost his case, as did other drivers during the strike at Swansea a few years ago. Thus there is a need for the new defence and I ask your Lordships to support this Bill this evening. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—[Lord Brougham and Vaux.]
7.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, on introducing this Bill. I also congratulate him on introducing his first Bill after 17 years in your Lordships' House. I think it is particularly good, when one introduces one's first Bill, that it should be such a sensible Bill. If one looks at the Explanatory Memorandum one sees that it states in the first paragraph:
"The purpose of the Bill is to extend the current five day period available to all drivers for producing certain motoring documents to seven days"—
and this is the important part—
"and to provide a defence for those drivers who are unable to produce their documents within that period".
Really that says everything. One can imagine someone who, for instance, is driving to London Airport, perhaps to board an aeroplane to fly across to the United States to sign a very important contract, having a minor accident when the police are called, and who has not got his insurance document. The police rightly say, "You have five days to produce your documents". He says, "I cannot do that. I am going in one or two hours to the United States of Ameria to sign a massive contract, and I shall not be back." Unless we accept this Bill, he is either found guilty—because, as the noble Lord has said, the law is absolute—and ends up being fined or getting his licence endorsed, or he stays behind and misses a very important contract
912
which might bring in millions of pounds and create thousands of jobs.
I do not really need to say any more. I cannot understand why this Bill was not introduced a long time ago. It is a very good Bill, a very simple Bill, and I commend it to your Lordships.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, on introducing this Bill, and on the way in which he did it. I would also congratulate him on having a Bill of this nature as a first Bill, because it is a really practical and well-needed Bill for the motorist and, I would say, also for the police. I think the main purpose of the Bill from the point of view of the average motorist is that it gives him just a little more time to produce these documents: that is, instead of five days, seven days. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is also important: that as a defence some explanation should be possible in circumstances which are perhaps uncommon but not unusual. The noble Earl gave an instance of someone who was about to leave the country and who could find himself with a blemish on his licence which was really unnecessary.
There is only one point that I am really concerned about, and I think the Minister is probably aware of it. My purpose, having been asked by the Royal Automobile Club to raise it, is to get the Minister to give us a little more assurance on what unfortunately turned out to be a flaw in the Bill. There was an omission which meant that an insurance certificate was not included in the list of documents that could be produced within seven days. As the Bill stands, all the other documents relating to the vehicle and the driver are allowed to be produced within a period of seven days, whereas the insurance certificate—because of this omission in the Bill, which seemed to slip through unnoticed by many people but not, apparently, by the legal adviser to the RAC—must be produced in five. This is an obvious anomaly. If we kept rigidly to the law it would mean that the motorist obviously would not have any longer under the Bill than he has at present, because no one would be silly enough to go with his insurance certificate on the Tuesday and hang on until the Thursday before handing in the other documents.
I know that there were problems about making an amendment because the Government were not keen to have this Bill brought in and put on the statute book. I myself believe that it was possibly bad advice that was given to the Government because of the time the Bill took in another place, and without really looking at the reasons for the Bill taking as long as it did there, which really had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the Bill. This was a very old parliamentary necessity which Members of all parties have deployed at one time or another: that of using one particular Bill to help to frustrate a following Bill.
I think the Government would have got away quite easily with a proper amendment had they put it through. It would have gone through as quickly as, I hope, this Bill will go through tonight. However, if the Government feel that it is not going to be possible for them to introduce an amendment at any

913
stage—remembering that in this House we can do it even at Third Reading—could the Minister give some sort of assurance that an allowance will be made in some way? It has been suggested that chief constables should issue instructions to their constables to be reasonable about the production of the insurance ceritificate so that it can be produced in seven days as well as the other documents. I do not know how you get the chief constables to do that because you are then officially asking a chief constable to break the law.
But this is an obvious error, and I think everyone accepts that it is an error. I wonder whether the Minister, having had the difficulty pointed out to him, can find some way round it. With that very understandable slip the Bill went through all its stages. It is understandable that the mover of the Bill did not quite catch this point, but I should like the Minister to give us some assurance. But whatever happens, I certainly would wish the Bill Godspeed and hope that it gets quickly on to the statute book.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend on the introduction of his first Bill after 17 years in your Lordships' House. I hope that future Bills that he introduces will attract as much widespread support from all quarters. My noble friend has explained the Bill so clearly that there is very little left for me to say. It is a modest measure, relatively simple and straightforward, but nonethless one which should make life rather easier for many motorists.
My noble friend has explained the present requirement to produce the relevant documents and the absence of any defence for not doing so. He has explained how the Bill will extend the five-day period to seven days and provide a defence for a person who is still unable to produce the required documents within the seven-day period. This defence can be divided into two parts. On the one hand, failure to produce driving documents within that period will not constitute an offence in circumstances where they are produced as soon as reasonably practicable; or, alternatively, if it is not reasonably practicable, where they are produced before the day on which court proceedings are started. As my noble friend has said, the Bill is likely to be welcomed by the general motoring public and the main motoring organisations and other road users. I therefore have no hesitation whatsoever in commending the Bill to your Lordships' House.
To take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned—and I must admit that it had not gone unnoticed—the matter of the insurance document is applicable only after an accident. The Bill applies to insurance certificates where the police require them to be produced for other reasons, so it is only, in effect, in the case of an accident; it is not so in every case. But I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to it.
I accept that the Bill does not amend this. As the noble Lord has said, to do so would require moving an amendment and this would result in the Bill having to be returned to another place for consideration. In view of the pressures on the parliamentary timetable in the
914
other place it seems quite likely that the Bill could be lost due to lack of time.
I accept that not amending the Bill will result in a small anomaly but, given the all party support for what is essentially a relatively minor measure, it would be a great pity to risk losing it for this reason. I rather doubt therefore that we should seek to amend the Bill and I would recommend against taking any action at this stage on the point the noble Lord has raised.
With regard to asking chief constables to do something, I think it is very unlikely that I could give that assurance at all. The circular mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would have to be issued by the Home Office. Therefore I will discuss this with my noble friend and perhaps I may write to the noble Lord. But I would not be too hopeful of giving instructions to chief constables. I would, however, give the noble Lord the firm assurance that we shall bear this in mind for the future and when a suitable legislative opportunity arises we will seek to amend the provision. With that, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, it just remains for me to thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and my noble friend the Minister on the front Bench for their kind words on my first Bill after 17 years. I take the point about the slight omission. I shall have a word with my colleague in another place and the Minister to see whether there is any way in which we can deal with this. If there is any chance of amending it before Third Reading, obviously we will, but otherwise I accept the words of my noble friend the Minister. I should like once again to thank your Lordships for your kind support and to thank my noble friend and all his colleagues for their help.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure and I would confirm that we shall not return to business until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.42 until 8.20 p.m.]

Interception of Communications Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 9 [Exclusion of evidence]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 8, line 3, after ("shall") insert ("except as authorised by direction given in pursuance of subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I shall also be talking to Amendment No. 18, with which No. 17 is very much linked.
Amendment No. 18: Page 8, line 8, at end insert—
("(1A) A direction as mentioned in subsection (1) above may

915
be given by a court or tribunal if that court or tribunal is satisfied whether on application or otherwise that a failure to give such a direction would seriously prejudice the rights of one or more of the parties to the proceedings before it.").
The amendments refer to Clause 9 of the Bill, the marginal note to which is "Exclusion of evidence". As I see it, this is an extraordinary clause because it provides in very clear terms that,
"In any proceedings before any court or tribunal"—
that is any tribunal—
"no evidence shall be adduced and no question in cross-examination shall be asked which (in either case)"—
that is, in the case of adducing evidence or putting a question in cross-examination—
"tends to suggest—

(a) that an offence under section 1 above has been or is to be committed by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below; or

"(b) that a warrant has been or is to be issued to any of those persons."

If the Committee will be good enough to look at subsection (2), it says that,
"The persons referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) any person holding office under the Crown;

(b) the Post Office and any person engaged in the business of the Post Office; and

(c) any public telecommunications operator and any person engaged in the running of a public telecommunication system."

If the clause means what it says, it means this. First, the court is given no discretion whatsoever—nor is the tribunal—in regard to the admission of any such evidence or the putting of any such question in cross-examination. It means that, if that be so, whatever the court might think—for example, the cross-examination of the defendant in the Malone case could never have taken place in order to find out that indeed from the policeman's notebook it appeared there had been an interference, an interception, of a communication.
Secondly, the clause refers to "any tribunal" and, as we all know, one of the tribunals that we have in this country is an industrial tribunal. I borrow this example for the honourable Member for Grantham, who bears by way of inheritance a name much honoured in this Chamber. I refer of course to Mr. Douglas Hogg, and I borrow this example from the honourable Member's speech in another place, which I know that I must not read in extenso or quote from and therefore, if I may, I will paraphrase it. He gave as an example before an industrial tribunal a case in which somebody coming within the category of (2)(b) of Clause 9—that is to say,
"the Post Office and any person engaged in the business of the Post Office"—
had been dismissed because the Post Office had discovered that that employee had breached the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill and had indeed committed an offence under Clause 1 by intercepting communications without any authority and without any warrant. So they dismissed him. The employee thereupon brought a case for unfair dismissal before the industrial tribunal and he queried what, in the name of Heaven, was the position of the Post Office under this clause—because this is a clause which says that,
"In any proceedings before any court or tribunal no evidence shall be adduced and no question in cross-examination shall be asked
916
which … tends to suggest … that an offence under section 1 above has been or is to be committed by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below …".
This is an impossible position, because paragraphs (b) and (c) clearly cover any such situation. Quite apart therefore from what apparently to me (although I may be proved to be quite wrong) is the absurdity of the clause—but if I am guilty of the offence of thinking that there is an absurdity when there is no absurdity, I share in glory that position with the honourable Member for Grantham, as I have said—what are we doing absolutely excluding evidence without giving the court any discretion?
I can remember discussions in your Lordships' Chamber, in which, if I remember correctly, more than one Law Lord participated, when we were dealing with evidence. It must have been in connection with the Administration of Justice Bill; and I can remember lawyers more learned than I shall ever be talking about the wrong road which the American courts and the American legislators had found they were treading in excluding evidence completely which had been improperly obtained, without giving the court any discretion at all. I believe that it was called "the absolute exclusion".
How extraordinary that we should have criticised that provision of the American courts and the road which they trod and from which I think they are now trying to come back! That is to say, excluding evidence absolutely without any discretion for the court where evidence has been improperly obtained. Yet here we are in a Bill excluding evidence completely which,
" … tends to suggest that an offence under section 1 … has been or is to be committed by any of the persons mentioned …"
in this subsection. So, bearing in mind the discussion which took place, and bearing in mind what I know to be the position of many eminent lawyers in our country, I have tried by this amendment to give a discretion to the court, and thus I insert in Amendment No. 17,
"except as authorised by direction given in pursuance of subsection (1A) below".
Then in Amendment No. 18 I introduce the following as a subsection:
"A direction as mentioned in subsection (1) above may be given by a court or tribunal if that court or tribunal is satisfied whether on application or otherwise that a failure to give such a direction would seriously prejudice the rights of one or more of the parties to the proceedings before it".
Therefore I am following the line of the Bill but I am merely giving an ultimate jurisdiction and discretion to the court or to the tribunal to say, "No, if we exclude this evidence completely or this right to cross-examine, we are indeed perpetrating an injustice; we are prejudicing the rights of one or more of the parties to the proceedings before our court or tribunal, and therefore we are going to say that this evidence is admissible". That seems to me to be a sensible alteration of a clause which, at the moment, is not at all sensible. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Denning: I have great sympathy with this amendment. Of course, the origin of this sort of thing is when the police get information from an informer who does not wish to give evidence in the court about

917
it. The judges have ruled that he cannot be asked from what person he got the information or what the information was. The judges have ruled that because, if he were once compelled to give the name of his informer, all sources of information would dry up all together. That was the court's ruling.
Of course, it is a most difficult situation with which we have to deal here, because everything must be very secret in this matter, especially information in regard to a serious crime or whatever it may be. It must all be kept very secret so as not to put the culprits on their guard. They must not get information. You have to remember that it is before any proceedings, before any court or tribunal, and I suppose that that includes the prosecution of a person who is alleged to have intercepted without proper authority. I can understand that there will be great difficulty in giving him a fair trial in those circumstances, if evidence of all kinds is being excluded.
So, in a way, I would support the amendments in giving a discretion to the court, or to whoever is dealing with the matter, to admit such a question as this if it would be not prejudicial to security or anything of that kind. On the whole I think it would be wise to give a discretion to the judge, or to whoever is presiding over the tribunal, as to the admission of this evidence.
Viscount Whitelaw: In presenting this amendment to your Lordships, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has raised a number of specific points with which I shall deal in a moment. He has also raised general questions about Clause 9 as a whole, and it may be helpful to your Lordships if I comment on them first.
I believe it was accepted on all sides of your Lordships' House that it must be possible to maintain the complete secrecy of the system of authorised interceptions, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has just referred to that again. The people against whom it is directed, such as spies and drug runners, are highly sophisticated. They will miss no opportunity available to them to find out whether they are the subject of investigation and, if they are, the grounds on which a warrant was issued. It is the Government's very firm view that authorised interception would be irreparably damaged as a method of protecting national security and dealing with serious crime, if this secrecy could be breached. In some cases, even to allow somebody to discover that he is the subject of attention might make it impossible to pursue an investigation. Disclosure of the pattern of use of interception would also be immensely damaging. It would be irresponsible of any Government not to ensure this secrecy. I rather suspect that so far we are on all fours in that particular regard.
The Bill accordingly contains a number of special safeguards. The arrangements for the tribunal have been framed with this in mind. The same consideration applies to other court proceedings. Clause 9 is designed to ensure that the confidentiality of information about interception is preserved, so that ingenious litigants and their even more ingenious advisers cannot use the courts to discover whether or not a warrant has been issued. The essential point is that the enactment of the Bill will change the situation. So far it has been possible to construct safeguards on
918
revelations about warrants on an ad hoc basis. This has proved increasingly unsatisfactory. With a comprehensive statutory scheme it will no longer be safe to rely on it. Moreover, in the Government's view it is right in principle that a Bill which seeks to be comprehensive and to provide answers about questions relating to all aspects of interception should make the position clear in connection with court proceedings. It will be quite wrong to leave the law to be established by the courts as a development of the principles of public interest immunity, when in this field it is so vital that the answers must be certain.
In the Government's view, the clause does not impose an unacceptable restriction on proceedings. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out at Second Reading—and we are indeed indebted to him for doing so—and as he has repeated tonight, a policeman cannot now be asked in the witness box about an informer. This is a long-standing restriction, which is essential if the use of informers is to continue to make the vital contribution that it does to the successful detection of crime. The restriction on information about interception is comparable. Moreover—and I think this is important to emphasise—the nature of the rules of evidence in criminal trials is such that it is highly improbable that in any case material obtained by interception would be admissible evidence.
It has been suggested that Clause 9 would prevent people from obtaining their rights before the courts. The example of Malone has been cited. I do not really believe that there are any grounds for this fear. In the case of Malone, the High Court specifically said that it had no locus in the matter. Interception was lawful and that was that. The courts, in other words, do not provide a remedy now, so nothing is being taken away. What the Bill does is to establish an effective remedy through the tribunal. It is to the tribunal that any future Malone would go. There, he could be assured that his case would be thoroughly examined, whatever sensitive issues it gave rise to. Whatever freedom there might be for the courts, they would surely never be able to examine the kind of material which will be routinely available to the tribunal.
The question has also been raised about the relationship between this provision and the breach of confidence legislation, which my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary has said the Government will introduce on the basis of the Law Commission's report. I am reluctant to widen our task by discussing the detail of a draft Bill which the Government intend to introduce in the future, although, of course, everything said here today will be taken very much into account. The relationship between the two provisions is a matter that we shall have at the forefront of our considerations when we look at the draft breach of confidence Bill in the light of the decisions taken here and in another place on the Bill now before us.
Noble Lords will appreciate that the clause works by imposing a general restriction and then making specific exceptions to it. The Government believe that this is the right way to go about things. In this context, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out on Second Reading—and he has argued it again today—that the Bill unacceptably prevents relevant information being

919
brought before an industrial tribunal when somebody has been dismissed for doing something amounting to or associated with interception. He has cited in his support the Member for Grantham in another place, and who better to cite in one's support than a member of that family? His argument, I must admit, quite apart from that, was persuasive, and I can give the undertaking that the Government will consider what he has said with a view to introducing an appropriate amendment at Report stage. That is on the specific point—
Lord Mishcon: May I say—
Viscount Whitelaw: I have not finished. I think I should say to the noble Lord, that that was on the specific point of the industrial tribunal, about which he made a very specific and important point. If, despite what I have said, the prosecution in a criminal case has in its possession, as a result of interception, material which might clear the defendant but which cannot be put in evidence because of Clause 9—and which, incidentally, because of long-standing practice would not now be put in evidence either—and if that evidence is capable of raising a reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors as to the guilt of the accused, the prosecution will be dropped. I understand from my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General that this is the practice of the Director of Prosecutions where similar problems arise today and any case where this problem does arise will come to the Director's attention. This will, of course, be more clearly certain when the Crown Prosecution Service comes into operation.
Finally, I must refer to what I believe are two mistaken assumptions on which this amendment is based. The first is that the courts will know that there is evidence of this kind to give. I do not believe that this will be the case. It would undoubtedly be unacceptable if it were, because it would mean that the essential secrecy to which I have referred had already been breached. Second, and more important, is the fact that, by following the path set out in this amendment, both parties to the proceedings in question might be involved in any consideration of whether or not a direction should be given, and if it was would be privy to what was presented as a result.
I am sure your Lordships can conceive of circumstances where an ingenious litigant would discover grounds on which he might expect to persuade the court that it was in his interests that evidence which he believed to be in the hands of the authorities, and which he believed to be the result of interception, was essential to secure his rights. If he argued this before the court, what does it do? As a minimum, it must presumably find out whether there is anything in the story. It can only do that by asking the Crown, and at least forcing the Crown either to confirm or to deny the existence of a warrant.
That, in itself, tells the litigant a great deal. It breaches the very confidentiality on which the effectiveness of authorised interception so crucially depends. In short, I believe that the approach embodied here gives just the opening that the ingenious criminal and spy will want. I am bound to
920
say that it would be immensely damaging if that was what happened. In short, I believe that it would be wrong to allow it.
I have said a great deal on this amendment and have adduced a number of reasons for believing that the approach contained in the clause as it is now drafted is the right one. But at the same time I have recognised the important point about industrial tribunals which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We will certainly seek to deal with that on the lines that I have suggested, before Report stage. With that in mind, and in the light of the undertaking I have given on that point, I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw the rather broader nature of the amendments.
Lord Denning: May I just say that, having listened to all that the Lord President of the Council has said, I am quite persuaded that it would be wrong to entrust the judge with a discretion? It is much better for him to have a firm rule whereby evidence of this kind is excluded because of the danger of the criminal, the terrorist or whoever it may be getting to know the sources of information, the way the interception works or matters of that kind. It is the same as in the case of the informer which I mentioned.
It is very important to keep all these things quite secret and not to let them get to the knowledge of those who are charged or who are serving in any way. It is better to have a definite rule rather than to give the judge a discretion, which this does. My noble friend has got part of his case and has the industrial tribunals, which are to be considered. But, on the whole, let the principle of the clause as it stands remain.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: May I at once thank the noble Viscount for the gracious way in which he accepted part of the argument which I tried to advance in support of this amendment? I repeat that it was as a result of reading the Official Report of the proceedings in another place that I found the strong point about the tribunal mentioned by the honourable Member for Grantham. As I believe it is only right to recognise the source of what would otherwise appear to be an original and brilliant point, instead of taking credit for it I immediately repeat the fact that it was originally made in another place. But I thought it correct to borrow the point because I believed it was right.
With regard to the rest of the argument, I assure the noble Viscount that I have no intention of pressing this amendment to a Division. Looking around me, I can foresee the consequences if I did so. But, in any event, I would not have dreamed of doing it in view of the noble Viscount's response.
The only point that I want to make is this. I do not think—and I say this with great respect—that all the ramifications of this clause have really been thought out. If it were limited to protecting the sort of information of informers and all the rest that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, so correctly mentioned, then of course I would be in favour of protecting it. But I am afraid that what we are possibly doing here is making a very strong wall that cannot be climbed, because no discretion is left to the court, which may

921
inhibit the progress of proper proceedings and justice in quite a few cases.
At this time, I shall not give examples and lengthen a speech that I have no doubt has been quite long enough. But the noble Viscount said that I had cited on Second Reading the case of Malone and had repeated it today, and had said—in his view, not with great justification—that the very origins of this Bill, and certainly of the case that was brought by Malone before the Court of Human Rights, was not a very good point, because it was decided that he had no rights at that stage, but could now go to the tribunal.
The whole thrust of my argument is that dear Mr. Malone would not have had the slightest knowledge, but for the question that was put in cross-examination, that there had, in fact, been any wrongful interception so far as he was concerned. He therefore would have had nothing on which he could go to the Court of Human Rights, to a tribunal or to anywhere else. It was only because his counsel put in cross-examination a question which elicited the fact that a wrongful interception had taken place that it became apparent. What we may well be doing, if we allow Clause 9 to stand as it is, quite apart from any amendment to cover the industrial tribunal point, is seeing that the author, very likely, of this Bill—the case of Malone—can never reappear in the future, because Malone or his counterpart will never know if a wrongful interception has taken place, whether by a police officer as a servant of the Crown or whoever it is.
Having made both points, I know from the courtesy always extended by the noble Viscount that he will consider what I have said, whether it be good, bad or indifferent, and come to a conclusion not only upon the matter of the tribunal on which he has been so gracious, but possibly in regard to the wide ramifications of this clause. He may find on reflection—and I say this with great respect—that some discretion must be given to the court or to the tribunal concerned, bearing in mind that, as we all know, when such a submission is made, if it be a criminal case, the jury is not present, nor are the public and in certain cases neither are the participants to the litigation or the prosecution or the defendant. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation.]:
Viscount Whitelaw Viscount Whitelaw moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
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;")

Page 9, line 7, leave out from ("warrant") to end of line 9.
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I may move Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together. These amendments are purely drafting ones designed to secure the better expression of two of the definitions
922
contained in Clause 10. They introduce no change of substance to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Whitelaw Viscount Whitelaw moved Amendment No. 21:
[Printed earlier: col. 852.]
The noble Viscount said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 43, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: One of the ways in which a warrant can be issued by the Secretary of State is if he has before him matters which seem to show that a serious crime has been or may well be committed. "Serious crime" is defined in this Bill in the interpretation clause, which is Clause 10. Your Lordships will find that at the bottom of page 9, in subsection (3). It is obviously most important that there is a clear definition of what we mean by "serious crime".
In another place at various stages of the Bill, because of the seriousness and importance of this matter, there were discussions on whether or not the term "serious arrestable offence", which we discussed in another Bill and defined in another Bill, should be used here. It was found—I think for good reason—that "serious arrestable offence" was possibly not appropriate. Then again there was discussion as to whether the actual crime should be put down in a schedule. Again, I would agree with those who would say that to have a comprehensive list of the crimes to be covered here might not serve a useful purpose. I shall now deal with one of the things that makes me most unhappy about this subsection in regard to the definition. Perhaps I may refer the Committee to subsection (3). Let us see what it is that for the purposes of this Bill would constitute a "serious crime". It says:
"For the purposes of this Act conduct which constitutes or, if it took place in the United Kingdom, would constitute one or more offences shall be regarded as serious crime if, and only if—
(a) it involves the use of violence,"—
I pause there. How much violence? Who is to decide whether what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, defined with such dramatic art as battery only the other day by, if I remember correctly, touching the shoulder of one of the Hansard reporters, was violence? Was that violence when the noble and learned Lord did it? Was it merely as he said a slight form of battery, but nevertheless battery? How much violence? How severe?
The subsection continues:
"results in substantial financial gain".
That is a very subjective test. What to one Member of your Lordships' Committee may be "substantial financial gain" to another Member of your Lordships' Committee may be a mere pittance. We discussed that in another context in another Bill when we thought about the robbing of the widow of what might be 5p, which to her at that time was a very substantial amount.
The subsection continues:
"or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".

923
I am not quite sure that I know what that means if it is to be taken by itself.
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose",
can be merely marching down a street or arranging to meet in one of your Lordships' rooms, because those involved have a common purpose and presumably in the course of it are guilty of some conduct, if "guilty" is the right word to use. They merely conduct themselves in a certain way.
Then the subsection continues:
"or
(b) the offence or one of the offences is an offence for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more".
That is a remarkable assessment for the Secretary of State to have to make, bearing in mind, I suppose, that he would have to imagine the submissions that might be made in mitigation and which might in fact reduce the sentence to one of two years instead of three years or more.
I could go on like this, but I decided that there was no real creative purpose in my pursuing a destructive line in regard to this definition if I could not come forward with some improvement. I am going to take it for granted at the Committee stage that this is the best we can do; but we cannot leave it as alternatives. At least we can strenghen the matter; I am referring to violence, I am referring to the substantial financial gain, and to the conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose. I say: do not make these alternatives but make it all qualified by the word "and" instead of "or" before paragraph (b), so that anything that comes within paragraph (a) constitutes:
"the offence or one of the offences … for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more".
If we insert "and" instead of "or" we get the situation where anything in paragraph (a) has at least to be of such a serious nature that it would in fact on reasonable assumptions mean that there would be imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more. That is the reasoning behind my amendment. As I have just said, I have tried to make it as constructive as possible and not destructive. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I hope that your Lordships' Committee will not accept this amendment. The real purpose behind this particular power is that the Secretary of State should be able to issue a warrant where it is necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime. Nothing is more important in the present day than that we should be able to prevent or detect serious crime. One of the ways of doing it is by tapping beforehand the telephones of criminals or whoever it may be.
The leading phrase in the subsection is "serious crime". The definition in the subsection on page 9 reads:
"shall be regarded as serious crime if, and only if".
924
It seems to me that the word "serious" must be read and should be read as applying to the whole of those categories. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not it is sufficiently serious to justify the use of a warrant for the interception. Surely it is right to detect crime if it involves the use of violence. That means serious violence, not a mere tap on the shoulder. It means crime which,
"results in substantial financial gain",
which means probably thousands of pounds, not a few shillings; or,
"conduct by a large number of persons"—
which is very important with all the riots and so forth—
"in pursuit of a common purpose".
That seems to be perfectly proper. The subsection goes on:
"or
(b) the offence … is an offence for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one"
may be liable to three years' imprisonment. Again the overriding word is "serious".
The Secretary of State can be trusted to issue the warrant only when it is a serious crime and when it is necessary. In other words, this definition clause seems to me to be helpful and not one in any way to be impugned. Therefore I would resist the amendment.
9 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for giving the Committee an opportunity to consider the definition of serious crime which, as he said, was introduced into the Bill in response to concerns—whose force the Government accepted—expressed in another place. For reasons which I shall set out in a moment, though, I am bound to resist the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord. I am nevertheless sure that it is important that your Lordships should have the opportunity to examine one of the provisions which is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, so fundamental to the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion.
The definition of serious crime which would appear in Clause 10(3) is the same as that set out in the 1980 White Paper on interception, together with the addition made in April 1982 following the second report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, in his capacity as monitor of interception arrangements. I can assure your Lordships that there are no changes of substance between the White Paper definition (with the addition made on the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock) and the formulation now in the Bill.
It was made quite clear in the 1980 White Paper (as indeed it was in the 1957 Birkett Report) that an activity could be regarded as coming within the "serious crime" definition if it satisfied any one of the relevant criteria; that is, that it involved an offence for which a man with no previous convictions could reasonably expect to receive at least a three year sentence, or an offence which met one of the other criteria, such as the use of violence.
The noble Lord's amendment, though it may look innocuous enough—and I certainly appreciate his

925
motives in putting it forward—would in fact significantly narrow the grounds on which the Secretary of State may authorise interception for serious crime purposes. It would narrow them not only in relation to what is in the Bill but also, as your Lordships will appreciate from what I have already said, it would by the same token narrow them in relation to the past practice of Secretaries of State over a long period. It would do so in a way which I have to tell your Lordships would hinder the effective use of interception in the fight against certain types of crime which I am sure your Lordships would want to see investigated by the most effective means possible including, where appropriate, the use of interception. The amendment brings about this narrowing by making the criteria cumulative, so that, for example, a warrant in a case involving the use of violence could not be granted unless there was also a likelihood of a three year sentence for a first offender.
If we look at the part of the definition which refers to,
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose",
this element is needed to deal with the case of a major criminal conspiracy in which the involvement of any individual is not necessarily such as to bring the case within the criterion relating to the length of the likely sentence. Some form of racketeering might be an example of where this criterion would come into play.
Turning to the criterion of "substantial financial gain", I think we should first of all remind ourselves that it was introduced on the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, who I am sure would not have suggested the addition of an extra criterion if he had considered that the circumstances which he had in mind were covered by any of the other criteria. One example suffices to show where this criterion might justify interception in circumstances where interception could not legitimately be authorised on any of the other specified grounds, and that is the importation of indecent or obscene material, which carried a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment. Yet the rewards of this activity can run into millions of pounds, and I cannot believe that your Lordships would wish interception to be ruled out (as might well be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment) in the fight against the smuggling of especially repugnant forms of hard-core pornography involving, for example, bestiality or the sexual abuse of children.
Finally, I do not think that there can be much doubt that interception should continue to be available, as it has been over a long period, for use against crimes of violence, and that it should not also be necessary to show, as the noble Lord's amendment would require, that there was a likelihood of a three year or more sentence on first conviction.
I appreciate very much the motives which led the noble Lord to put forward this amendment and the way in which he very reasonably presented it. I hope that he will consider very carefully the explanations I have given, and indeed the firm assurance—which I gladly repeat—that the clause as drafted does no more than put the existing rules into statutory language with no widening or narrowing. I have to say to the noble
926
Lord that this is one of the areas where I did have considerable experience of operating the warrant system. Frankly, I would be very unhappy, from what I learned at that time, if this definition were to be changed. I hope that the noble Lord will consider very carefully what I have said from experience on this occasion and that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: As the noble Viscount knows, I have considerable respect for what he has said in his last few phrases. The noble Viscount speaks from a wealth of experience which was put at the disposal of this country and which has been very much appreciated. Having said that, I still believe there was some substance in what I put forward by way of argument in regard to this amendment. I still believe that although one may want to reduce the term of imprisonment from three years to two years, then if it were to be—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said—always to be treated as a serious crime, I would have thought that linking it to some form of anticipatory punishment and making that cumulative but not alternative might be the way of seeing to it that proper consideration was given to the nature of the crime before it was considered to be serious.
Having said that, I wish to consider very carefully what the noble Viscount has said. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Tribunal]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 11, line 4, leave out ("each") and insert ("at least three").
The noble Lord said: I think I can deal with this very briefly. The tribunal has been given very important powers. I know how the noble Viscount has talked, not only in regard to this Bill but on previous occasions, as have other Ministers, of the need for flexibility when considering legislation.
The Bill provides that each and every member of the tribunal must be a lawyer; and the question of seniority is dealt with in the Bill. I am not saying that it would be wrong to appoint only lawyers to this tribunal. One realises exactly what they have to do. My amendment provides that at least three out of the five are lawyers. I emphasis "at least" so that, in fact, all five could be lawyers, or four could be lawyers, but at least three must be lawyers. This will leave some discretion in the future, bearing in mind how the tribunal will work, so that if it were thought expedient that each and every member should not be a lawyer someone not coming within the qualifications set out in the Bill could be appointed. Therefore, it will give the flexibility which is so often asked for by Ministers and which I support on this occasion.
It may come oddly from me that I should be moving an amendment that possibly excludes a distinguished member of my profession from being a member of the tribunal. I do so with great sincerity because I believe

927
it is wrong for such an inflexible provision to be in the Bill and that nobody but a lawyer can ever be a member of the tribunal so long as the Act is on our statute book. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I think that on the whole it is as well to have all lawyers on the tribunal. We have considered what they will have to deal with. They will have to consider matters which would be determinable on judicial review if it were the High Court. That is essentially a lawyer's task. I can see the good sense of having perhaps one or two laymen, if need be; but on the whole I would not interfere with the Government's proposals that they should all be lawyers.
Viscount Whitelaw: I think this is one of the most upside down discussions that has ever occurred—that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should be arguing for cutting down the number of lawyers and that I, of all people, should be standing resolutely to their defence in a manner which would make the Lord Chancellor proud indeed, I am sure. But that is to some extent the position.
I must ask your Lordships' Committee, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to consider the place of the tribunal in the statutory scheme and the nature of its functions. The tribunal is designed to provide a remedy to the citizen in respect of the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under the warrant provisions in Clauses 2 to 5. In the ordinary course of events a remedy in respect of any ministerial exercise of a statutory power lies with the courts. Your Lordships recognised during the course of our debate last month that there were special considerations of secrecy which ruled out the use of the courts in this particular instance.
The tribunal is thus an alternative to the courts made necessary by the very special circumstances of interception. Its task is also essentially judicial, as is made clear by the terms of the Bill. Moreover, it has powers comparable to those of a court to award such compensation as it sees fit if it concludes that the Secretary of State has acted unlawfully, and to overturn the decision in question.
The term "tribunal" is applied to a wide variety of bodies examining the exercise of powers in a great variety of circumstances. More often than not, the circumstances are ones where the power has been exercised by an official on behalf of a Minister or by a private person. Here we are, as I said, concerned with the alternative to a court of law and with a body which is reviewing the personal decisions of a Secretary of State, with all the powers which flow from that. In these circumstances, it is the Government's very firm view that the tribunal should be composed of legally qualified people. More than that, it should—as is the effect of the first paragraph of Schedule 1—be composed of people qualified for judicial office by virtue of their seniority in their profession. Such people, by virtue of their background and qualifications, have both the right knowledge and the right skills to bring to bear on the exercise of the functions which I have described.
928
I do not of course argue from this—and who like me, would do so?—that legally qualified people are the only ones capable of reaching a mature and balanced judgment. If I may say so to your Lordships, I should be the last person to do that. It does not follow that legal qualifications are the only ones that are necessary or appropriate, and I would come back strongly to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on that. The Government have never argued that, and I do not do so now. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he expects the members of the tribunal to include those who, in addition to their legal qualifications, have a wide experience of affairs. Of course it is right that not all the members should just have experience of a solicitor's office or of practice at the Bar, and the Government's undertaking to ensure that this wider experience is adequately represented is without equivocation.
There is one other important consideration to which I must draw your Lordships' Committee's attention. It is the Government's belief that this Bill meets the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is our intention that it should do so. The convention requires that there should be an effective remedy. The Government believe that the provisions relating to the tribunal as set out in the Bill offer such a remedy, and we would not like its effectiveness in any way diminished, as I think it could be—or there would be those who would seek to make it look so—if the noble Lord's amendment was adopted. I believe that your Lordships would agree that that would be an undesirable result.
In these circumstances I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will accept that the spirit of his amendment—the need to secure wide experience on the tribunal—is met by the undertaking I have repeated today. To that extent, I believe the noble Lord and the Government are of one mind. But it remains the Government's view that all members, whatever their wider experience, should be legally qualified. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I am a proud member of a profession which over the past year or two has been accused of being monopolistically minded and the closest of closed shops that ever was. I hope that my speech tonight and the amendment that I have moved prove those accusations to be false. Having proved how false they are, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 11, line 33, leave out ("one") and insert ("three")
The noble Lord said: Again, I hope to deal with this matter briefly. Everybody has agreed that the tribunal is one of the pillars of the Bill and everybody agrees that the public ought to have confidence in the tribunal and the way that we have made provision for complaints—the matters referred to the tribunal—to

929
be dealt with by it. Therefore it was with some dismay that I saw in the schedule in paragraph 3(2) that:
"The functions of the Tribunal in relation to any application made to them shall be capable of being carried out by any one or more members of the Tribunal designated for the purpose by their President".
I think that we owe it to the public that they should see that when there are five members of a tribunal there should be at least three who deal with an application. For example, where a complaint is referred to the tribunal which is obviously, as lawyers would say, vexatious—it has no proper basis and possibly emanates from somebody with an unbalanced mind—I am not suggesting that three members of the tribunal should solemnly sit down and decide upon the matter and that there is no need to proceed with the complaint. But I say that even in a case like that the decision should be endorsed by another two members of the tribunal at least, by their initials signifying that they have read through the papers and have come to the same conclusion. I think it wrong for the public to be given the impression that questions of compensation and matters of that kind can be decided by one member of the tribunal alone. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: The important words here are:
"designated for the purpose by their President".
We have many courts and tribunals which have several members, but the president is usually the one who knows what the case is about. He sees it beforehand and says that it needs a three-judge court, or a five-judge court, or it may be in trivial cases of little importance that one can deal with it. It seems to me that we should do well to leave it to the president of the tribunal to decide how many should deal with a particular case, and rely on the president. I should not be in favour of the amendment.
Viscount Whitelaw: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has advanced a cogent case for the inclusion of such a provision in relation to a quorum in the provisions governing the tribunal. I believe that the Government and the noble Lord are of one mind on virtually everything that has been said on this subject today. First and foremost we are agreed—and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has agreed very strongly, too—on the importance of the tribunal. It lies at the very heart of the Bill, and provides a very real remedy for those against whom warrants have been wrongly directed. The noble Lord is accordingly quite right to emphasise that the tribunal's decisions must be properly taken. They may directly affect an individual in a very personal and significant way, and may directly bear on his rights. Of that there can be no doubt.
However, I should not wish the noble Lord to think that the provisions in Schedule 1 have been formulated in order to detract from this in any way or because the Government are seeking to weaken the remedy that the tribunal gives. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government concluded, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, suggested, that it was right to allow the president of the tribunal and his colleagues the maximum flexibility in arranging their procedures. This is why the tribunal
930
can sit in two or more divisions and can meet in any part of the country. It is as simple as that.
In adopting this approach, the Government had assumed—and the noble Lord may feel they had taken too much for granted—that wherever an application revealed a relevant warrant all available members of the tribunal would wish to convene to consider it. As a matter of practice I have little doubt that that would be the case. But the Government accept that as it is drafted Schedule 1, by allowing one member to act for the tribunal as a whole, perhaps creates the quite erroneous impression that the examination of a relevant warrant would be undertaken without any consultation. Clearly, it should not be thought that that would happen, and the Government accept that a change should be made to establish a quorum.
However, as in so many matters of this kind there is much more to it than meets the eye at first reading. The noble Lord will appreciate that not all the decisions which are formally that of the tribunal will concern a relevant warrant. In some instances, the tribunal must decide whether an application is frivolous or vexatious. That, too, is important, and affects somebody; but I believe your Lordships will agree that it is a decision of a rather different order. So is the decision to reply to an applicant when there is no relevant warrant or certificate in his case. Again, without in any way detracting from the importance of what the tribunal does, I am sure the Committee will appreciate that some of the applicants will be without genuine grounds for concern. I hope the noble Lord who has moved this amendment will agree that it is at least an open question as to whether three members of the tribunal need invariably participate in decisions of that kind.
A further complication arises over the other provisions I mentioned a moment ago which allow flexible procedures. Having been properly chided by the noble Lord earlier about the importance of flexibility in legislation and how often Ministers rely on this, I have to plead guilty to it again. I think it is likely that the introduction of a quorum may necessitate some consequential changes here. But these are all matters which need to be considered comprehensively and not taken one by one.
In short—and I hope I end the proceedings on this part of the Bill on a happy note—the Government accept that there should be a quorum for the tribunal, and I give an unequivocal undertaking to introduce amendments to the Bill at Report stage for the purpose of establishing one. It will, however, be necessary for those amendments to reflect all the considerations to which I have just referred. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment now before us. I think it can be said that on this day, when we have had much in agreement, I have managed to bring the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, as near as possible together in what I have proposed, and that seems to be a satisfactory way in which to conclude.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will pardon me if I point out that there is a

931
difference between a precedent of a court deciding upon how many judges should adjudicate. The parties are there before the judge. They can see that justice is being done. They can hear the argument before him. They can hear what he has to say in regard to it.
This is indeed a secret tribunal before which the member of the public will not be appearing at all. I am thinking of the appearance of this, of being told, "Well, I suppose it was one member of the tribunal alone who decided that my complaint was absolutely wrong. You see, I had no chance", etc., etc., "of its being dealt with in a proper way by at least something like three members of the tribunal".
I accept completely what the noble Viscount has said. I appreciate the consideration that the Government have given to my amendment and the promise that further consideration may well lead to some amendment occurring at a later stage of the Bill. I shall await that amendment with considerable interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Section substituted for section 45 of 1984 Act]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): In calling Amendment No. 25, I think I should point out that there is a misprint. I understand that the amendment should read: Page 13, line 6 leave out paragraph (a).
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 6, leave out paragraph ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: I am most grateful for that indication that right at the end of what has been a very interesting Committee stage there appears to be somewhat of a mess in regard to the amendment that I am due to move. It is not only a question of Page 13, line 6, as so helpfully pointed out, being the proper amendment here instead of Page 13, line 10; namely, that paragraph (a) should be left out. I myself made an error in not thinking sooner that I should also have proposed, Page 13, line 20 leave out subsection (3). So a manuscript amendment to that effect was put in. If, therefore, I may tidy up the situation, the amendments that I am asking your Lordships to consider over the next few minutes consist of the following—because I shall be speaking to all of them. First, Page 13, line 6, leave out paragraph (a). Then, Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 and manuscript Amendment No. 28.
Amendment No. 26: Page 13, line 10, after ("(a)") insert ("or (b)").
Amendment No. 27: Page 13, line 17, leave out ("which is made in the interests of national security or").
Amendment No. 28: Page 13, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (3)
The last amendment is a natural sequel from Amendment No. 27. I hope I shall be able to deal with these matters briefly. As presently drafted, the new section would permit the official telephone tapper to reveal the content of any intercepted conversation in order to prevent or detect crime, however minor—I am aware of what the noble and learned Lord said
932
recently about the serious offence but I say "however minor, without any warrant"—and to give evidence at any trial of that content. The section is not restricted to simple metering. We know that metering means information about the destination and duration of calls.
The amendments would ensure that the use made of any intercepted material would have to be covered by the Bill, so that all the safeguards in the Bill would apply. If an intercepted message was disclosed in a manner not authorised by Clause 1, an offence would be committed. The amendment to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) takes out matters that would also be covered by warrant in paragraph (b) but would permit information about metering itself to be disclosed on the order of a court. However, the content of the intercepted conversation could only be dealt with under Clause 9 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Whitelaw: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in moving this amendment, and speaking to those associated with it, has, I believe, done your Lordships' House a service by drawing attention to the very important provisions of Schedule 2, which I think it is fair to say did not receive as much attention in another place as perhaps they deserved. In relation to the disclosure of so-called metering information (that is, records of the numbers dialled and the length and duration of calls made from a particular telephone), the provisions of Schedule 2 provide a clear legal framework, modelled on that found in the Data Protection Act 1984, to control such disclosures, and make any disclosure outside that framework a criminal offence. This is another significant advance which this Bill brings for the safeguarding of the individual's privacy against undue intrusion, and it takes full account both of the views expressed in your Lordships' House when this matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, during our debates on the Telecommunications Bill last year, and of the relevant findings of the European Court in the Malone case.
9.30 p.m.
I should begin by observing that there is a fundamental difference between interception and the disclosure of metering information, which I shall deal with first. Intercepted material does not come into the hands of the person intercepting in the natural course of events, but metering information is information which is quite properly held by a telecommunications operator in the course of running his business. Meter check printers, which record metering information, are used in a wide variety of circumstances. By far the commonest is where there is a query about a telephone account.
There is no dispute that the disclosure of this information other than for the purposes of operating the telephone system gives rise to sensitive issues, and that there should be a clear statutory basis for such disclosure which sets out the grounds on which it is permissible. The Bill as drafted does this. Nor is there any doubt that access to such information can be of great assistance in the prevention and detection of crime or in the interests of national security.

933
Although the disclosure of metering information undeniably gives rise to sensitive issues, they are not however so acute as is the case in relation to interception. We must bear in mind that in no circumstances can metering information include any of the contents of telephone calls. It is solely a question of disclosing information properly held by the telecommunications operator, in the same way that, for example, a travel agent might tell the police the destination of a ticket he had sold to someone who was believed to be a fugitive from justice.
The noble Lord's amendments and the reasoning which he has advanced in support of them suggests a direct comparison between interception and metering which, with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe in fact exists. The European Court recognised that the two activities were different in kind in its judgment in the Malone case. Although it held that the law on the disclosure of metering information, like that on interception, needed to be clarified, it did not suggest that the same procedures were necessarily appropriate in both cases. In these circumstances, the Government do not believe that it would be right to require the Secretary of State to issue warrants authorising the disclosure. That should be reserved for the uniquely serious measure of interception, so that Secretaries of State can continue to give the close personal attention to interception warrants that the Committee rightly expects.
It is important also to realise that nothing in these provisions requires telecommunications operators to disclose metering information. They are simply permitted to do so in circumstances which are defined in a way which closely follows the precedent of the Data Protection Act 1984. Indeed, the comparison between the disclosure of personal data under that Act and the disclosure of metering information is I believe much closer than that between interception and metering.
In turning to the effect of subsection (2)(a) on the disclosure of intercepted messages, it should first be noted that the effect of subsection (2)(a) in this respect is no different from that of the corresponding part of Section 45(3) in the Telecommunications Act 1984, which similarly permits disclosure of the contents of an intercepted message in connection with:
"the investigation of any criminal offence, or for the purposes of any criminal proceedings".
Thus, amended Section 45(2)(a), in its effect on the disclosure of intercepted material, is there essentially to deal with the case of material properly intercepted by a public telecommunications operator other than in accordance with a warrant. This, therefore, means material intercepted in accordance with the relevant exceptions in Clause 1 of the Bill as amended earlier in our proceedings; that is, with the consent of one of the parties to a call or for purposes connected with the provision of telecommunication services. For example, public telecommunications operators may intercept obscene or menacing calls at the request of the subscriber. Where this happens it may obviously be desirable for the contents of the calls to be disclosed to the police and the courts, so that those responsible for these distressing calls can be brought to justice and it should not be necessary to seek a Secretary of State's
934
warrant for this. The amended Section 45(2)(a) allows this.
Another example of the need for the amended Section 45(2)(a) is the case of an engineer listening in for purposes connected with the provision of telecommunications services. Some listening in is an essential part of the maintenance of the telephone system. Most of what is heard, I am sure, is not really listened to or remembered; but what if the engineer happens to hear someone plotting a murder, a hank raid or a terrorist outrage? It would be absurd if he could not report the matter to the police.
I emphasise that the amended Section 45(2)(a) does not permit anyone to intercept calls other than as provided for in Clause 1. But where a call is properly intercepted either at the request of its intended recipient or in the course of normal telecommunications engineering operations, it is right that disclosure for the limited purposes set out in the amended Section 45(2)(a) should not be an offence.
Section 45(3) in Schedule 2, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also referred, follows the pattern of similar provisions in other legislation where it is necessary to provide protection for those who in good faith undertake action on grounds of national security where the detailed reasons for their actions cannot be discussed in court proceedings. To give only one example, similar provisions appear in Section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 in which, as your Lordships have already observed, the revised Section 45 is based in its effect on the disclosure of metering information.
Your Lordships will note that like the equivalent provision in the Data Protection Act, the certificate can be signed only by a Cabinet Minister, by the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate. Where the disclosure under Section 45(2)(c) is made on grounds of national security, it cannot be right for the disclosure and for reasons of security to be discussed in court. But it is right that senior Ministers who have the responsibility for safeguarding national security should be able to signify to the courts by means of a certificate in Section 45(3) that national security considerations are involved, and right also that the courts should accept that certificate as conclusive evidence.
In view of the fact that this was not discussed before, I thought it right to set out in answer to the noble Lord the case that the Government have for the particular provisions concerned. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will study these explanations, and when he has studied them I hope he will find that they are essential and do not in any way detract from the principles which this Bill establishes for authorised interception. The Government believe that Schedule 2 as it stands will achieve the right result, and I hope that after my explanation, and when he has had a chance to consider it, the noble Lord will feel likewise.
Lord Mishcon: In the course of the noble Viscount's courteous and lengthy reply to this amendment I noted the words "most of what is heard is not listened to or remembered". I assure him that that does not apply to his speech in my case; but I feel I ought to see the written word and study it rather than take it for granted that I have listened to and remembered all that

935
he has said. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
[Manuscript Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

C-Poultry Company Limited Bill
Read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Plymouth Marina Events Base Bill
Read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Royal Bank of Scotland Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Bath City Council Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before ten o'clock.

  BRITISH TELECOM: NET SALE RECEIPTS
  BRITISH TELECOM: NET SALE RECEIPTS
  ARMED FORCES: OVERSEAS ALLOWANCES
  ARMED FORCES: OVERSEAS ALLOWANCES